c 

cr 


E 

4-40 
P9 


BRECKINRIDOE  AND  LANE  CAMPAIGN  DOCUMENT,  No.  5. 

c_ 

2" 

THE   PUBLIC   RECORD 


M 

AND 


HISTORY 

OP 

JOHN  BELL  &  EDW'D  EVERETT. 


Heretofore,  it  has  been  the  custom  of  the  political  parties  which  have  divided 
the  country,  when  they  met  in  National  Conventions  to  nominate  candidates  for 
President  and  Vice  President  of  the  United  States,  to  lay  down  a  platform  of 
principles  upon  which  they  asked  the  support  of  the  American  people.  The  vote 
of  the  citizen  was  given  in  accordance  with  his  views  of  public  policy  and  measures, 
and  decided  in  favor  of  one  or  the  other  party  as  their  principles  of  political  action 
agreed  with  his.  Men  were  supported  only  as  the  representative  of  principle. 
In  this  canvass,  however,  one  of  the  political  parties  has  deemed  it  proper  or  ex 
pedient  to  depart  from  this  salutary  custom,  and  has  absolutely  refused  to  declare 
the  political  principles  by  which  its  supporters  will  be  guided,  or  the  political  meas 
ures  they  will  seek  to  enact,  should  they  be  installed  in  power.  We  have  only  a 
general  and  unmeaning  declaration  in  favor  of  the  "  Union,  the  Constitution,  and 
a  faithful  execution  of  the  laws/'  to  which  even  Abraham  Lincoln,  the  candidate 
of  the  Black  Republicans,  fully  subscribes.  They  make  no  issue  with  any  of  th& 
other  political  parties,  not  even  the  Black  Republicans.  They  refuse  to  inform 
us  of  their  construction  of  the  Constitution — whether  it  warrants  squatter  sov*- 
ereignty  in  the  Territories,  or  guarantees  to  every  citizen  in  them  the  full  pro- 
j  tection  of  his  property.  We  are  left  in  the  dark  as  to  whether,  according  to  their 

t  interpretation,  this  Constitution  is  a  Know-Nothing  Constitution,  or  proclaims 
civil  and  religious  liberty  to  every  man.  Nor  are  we  informed  what  "  laws" 
they  propose  to  enact  and  enforce.  All  is  vague  and  unmeaning.  They  differ 
from  nobody,  so  as  to  get  the  vote  of  everybody.  For  all  we  know,  their  views 
may  not  materially  differ  from  those  of  the  supporters  of  Lincoln  and  Hamlin. 
Indeed,  if  the  "past  record"  of  the  opinions  of  their  candidates  is  any  index,  we 
can  see  no  material  difference  between  them. 

Nor  are  their  candidates  more  explicit  or  disposed  to  furnish  information  of 
their  views  upon  the  exciting  questions  of  the  day.  They  have  both  refused  to 
declare  their  sentiments,  but  refer  us  back  to  their  "  past  history."  Mr.  Bell,  in 
his  letter  of  acceptance,  used  this  language  : 

"The  Convention,  in  disregarding  the  use  of  platforms,  exacts  no  pledge  from  those  whom 
they  deem  worthy  of  the  highest  trusts  under  the  Government,  wisely  considering  that  the 
surest  guaranty  of  a  man's  future  usefulness  and  fidelity  to  the  great  interests  of  the  coun 
try,  in  any  official  station  to  which  he  may  be  chosen,  is  to  be  found  in  his  past  history  con 
nected  with  the  public  service." 

And  his  home  organ  reiterates  his  language,  and  says  :  "  Mr.  Bell  can  refer 
'Only  to  his  life  and  his  opinions,  already  expressed.  To  these  opinions  he  has 

M114773 


to  add;  from  iliem  he  has  nothing  to  take  away"  The  only  mod*, 
therefore,  for  the  citizen  to  learn  the  views  of  these  candidates  is  to  refer  to  t*  -*ir 
"  past  history  connected  with  the  public  service,"  to  which  they  are  invited.  To 
the  record,  then,  let  us  go. 

As  the  slavery  question  is  the  paramount  issue  in  this  canvass,  let  us  first  take 
up  the  record  of  Mr.  Bell  in  reference  to  it,  before  proceeding  to  other  matters. 


JOHN  BELL  ON  ABOLITION  PETITIONS. 


Up  to  the  23d  Congress,  Mr.  Bell  had  been  the  firm  friend  and  supporter  of  Gen 
e*-a!  Jackson.  JJe  represented  the  district  in  which  General  Jacksou  lived  in  Ten 
nessee,  and  the  General  knew  him  well.  Up  to  this  time  he  had  voted  uniformly 
with  his  party  against  the  agitation  of  the  slavery  question  in  Congress  through  the 
presentation  of  Abolition  petitions.  But  after  abandoning  General  Jackson,  anji 
consorting  with  the  Abolitionists,  Federalists,  and  disappointed  Democrats,  in 
order  to  reach  the  Speaker's  chair,  all  of  which  will  be  more  fully  explained  here 
after,  we  find  him  abandoning,  by  degrees,  his  opposition  to  the  Abolitionists,  and 
at  last  voting  with  them,  and  receiving  their  plaudits. 

During  the  34th  Congress,  the  Abolitionists  and  Federalists  of  New  England 
first  conceived  the  idea  of  annoying  Congress  by  the  presentation  of  large  batches 
of  Abolition  petitions,  praying  for  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the  States,  and  in  the 
District  of  Columbia.  Mr.  John  Q.  Adams,  of  Massachusetts,  and  Mr  Slade,  of 
Vermont,  were  their  chosen  mouth-pieces.  These  gentlemen  would  present  these 
petitions,  and  then  deliver  long  harangues  upon  them.  To  stop  this  agitation 
and  waste  of  the  public  time,  it  was  usual  to  lay  these  resolutions  on  the  table. 
Accordingly,  on  the  18th  of  December,  1835,  when  a  petition  for  the  immediate 
abolition  of  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia  was  presented,  a  motion  was  made 
to  lay  it  on  the  table.  Mr.  Bell  voted  in  the  negative  with  Messrs.  Adams,  Slade, 
&  Co. — (See  page  34.) 

Again,  on  the  21st  of  December,  when  a  similar  petition  was  presented,  and  a 
motion  made  to  lay  it  on  the  table,  which  was  carried  by  ayes  140,  noes  76,  we 
find  Mr.  Bell  voting  with  Adams,  Slade  &  Co.,  against  the  motion. — (Page 
39.) 

The  frequency  of  the  presentation  of  these  petitions,  and  the  time  wasted  in 
their  discussion,  to  the  great  detriment  of  the  public  interest,  called  for  some  de 
cisive  action  on  the  part  of  the  House.  Consequently,  Mr.  Owens,  of  Georgia, 
moved  to  suspend  the  rules,  in  order  to  introduce  the  following  resolutions  : 

"Resolved,  That  in  the  opinion  of  this  House,  the  question  of  the  abolition  of  slavery  in 
the  District  of  Columbia  ought  not  to  be  entertained  by  Congress. 

«'  And  be  it  further  resolved,  That  in  case  any  petition  praying  the  ab'olition  of  slavery  in 
the  District  of  Columbia  be  hereafter  presented,  it  is  the  deliberate  opiuion  of  thi-  House 
that  the  same  ought  to  be  laid  upon  the  table  without  reading  " 

Mr.  Bell  voted  with  Adams,  Slade,  &  Co..  and  defeated  the  motion  to  susp-  s-d 
the  ruies,  two  thirds  being  necessary  for  that  purpose. — (Page  30.) 

In  order  to  dispose  of  this  matter,  Mr.  Pmokuey,  of  South  Carolina,  moved  a 
resolution  providing  for  the  appointment  of  a  committee,  "  with  instructions  ro  re 
port  that  Congress  possesses  no  constitutional  power  to  interfere  in  a*  y  way  vntb 
slavery  in  any  of  the  Stages  of  this  Confederacy  ;  and  that  in  the  opiui'm  ui  his 
House,  Congress  ought  not  to  interfere  in  any  way  with  slavery  in  the  District  of 
Columbia,  because  it  would  be  a  violation  of  the  public  faith,  unwise,  impolitic,  and 
dangerous  to  the  Union/'  On  the  monion  to  suspend  the  rules  for  the  purpoet?  of 
offering  this  resolution,  the  yeas  were  135,  noes  65.  Mr.  Bell  voted  in  the  nega 
tive.  He  also  voted  against  ordering  the  main  question  to  be  put  so  as  to  bring 
the  House  to  a  vote  on  the  resolutions,  but  he  yet  lacked  the  aerve  to  vote  against 
170,  171, 


During  tbo  month  of  May,  Mr.  Pinkney,  from  this  committee,  reported  a  se 
ries  of  resolutions,  the  first  of  which  was  the  following  : 

"  Resolved,  That  Congress  possesses  no  constitutional  power  to  interfere  in  any  way  with 
the  institution  of  slavery  in  any  of  the  States  of  this  Confederacy" 

The  question  then  recurred  upon  bringing  the  House  to  a  vote  on  the  resolu 
tions  by  ordering  the  main  question  to  be  put,  when  we  find  Mr.  Bell  voting  with 
Adam*,  Slade,  &  Oo.  to  stave  off  a  vote.  They  did  not  succeed,  however,  and 
the  question  recurring  on  the  resolution  itself,  we  find  Mr.  Bell  dodging  the  vote! 
tie  did  not  desire  to  offend  his  Abolition  friends,  one  of  whom  (Mr.  Adams,)  said 
in  reference  to  the  resolution  : 

"  If  the  House  would  allow  me  five  minutes'  time,  I  pledge  myself  to  prove  that  resolu 
tion  false  and  utterly  untrue."  Page  499. 

Finding  by  the  above  vote  that  they  could  not  defeat  the  other  resolutions,  tho 
Aboiitiouisrs  then  strove  to  stave  off  a  vote  on  them  by  factious  motions.  They 
would  move  to  adjourn,  and  then  while  that  question  was  being  taken,  another  of 
them,  when  his  name  was  called,  would  ask  to  be  excused  from  voting*  The 
Speaker  decided,  while  the  yeas  and  nays  were  being  called,  no  member  could 
interrupt  the  proceedings  by  a  motion  to  be  excused  from  voting.  An  appeal 
was  taken  from  the  decision  of  the  Chair,  which  was  sustained,  ayes  138,  noes 
46,  Mr  Bell  voting  with  Adams,  Sladc,  &  Co.  in  the  negative,  against  the  deci 
sion  But  their  efforts  did  not  prevail,  and  they  were  brought  to  a  vote  upon  tho 
others  of  the  series  of  resolutions,  the  last  of  which  was  in  these  words : 

"  And  whereas  it  is  extremely  important  and  desirable  that  the  agitation  of  this  subje<$ 
should  be  finally  arrested,  for  the  purpose  of  restoring  tranquility  to  the  public  mind,  your 
committee  respectfully  recommend  the  adoption  of  the  following  additional  resolution,  viz : 

"  Resolved,  That  all  petitions,  memorials,  resolutions,  propositions,  or  papers  relating  in 
any  way,  or  to  any  extent  whatever,  to  the  subject  of  slavery,  or  the  abolition  of  slavery, 
shall,  without  being  either  printed  or  referred,  be  laid  upon  the  table,  and  that  no  further 
action  whatever  shall  be  had  thereon." 

Mr.  Bell,  though  in  the  House,  refused  to  vote,  or,  in  other  words,  dodged  the 
vote  He  would  not  offend  his  new  Abolition  friends  by  voting  for  the  resolu 
tion,  and  if  he  voted  against  it,  the  people  of  Tennessee  would  have  laid  him  on 
the  shelf  forever.  So,  to  get  on  good  terms  with  both,  he  dodged  the  vote  !  He 
could  not  conceal  his  chagrin,  however,  at  being  forced  to  show  his  hand  or  dodge, 
and  he  was  indignant  that  his  Abolition  friends  were  not  allowed  to  debate  the 
resolutions,  and,  by  factious  motions,  stave  off  a  vote  upon  them.  Hear  him  : 

"  The  minority  of  the  House  were  tyrannized  over,  and  they  were  naturally  in  a  refrac 
tory,  restless,  and  perturbed  condition,  and  if  they  could  not  be  heard  orderly,  they  would 
do  so  disorderly."  Page  513. 

Verily,  Mr.  Bell  is  the  very  model  of  a  law-and-order-mau  !  He  was  willing 
to  join  the  Abolitionists  to  trample  down  the  rules  of  the  House,  and  set  at  defi 
ance  its  authority. 

For  all  these  proceedings,  see  Congressional  Globe,  1st  session  24th  Congress. 
The  pages  have  been  already  given. 

At  the  next  session,  the  former  order  having  expired  in  regard  to  the  disposal 
of  Abolition  petitions,  Mr.  Davis  moved  a  suspension  of  the  rules,  in  order  to 
adopt  a  resolution  that  all  such  petitions  be  laid  on  the  table,  without  debate,  and 
without  being  read.  Mr.  Bell  voted  with  Adams,  Slade,  &  Co.,  in  the  negative. 
Page  82. 

On  the  23d  of  January,  Mr.  Adams,  haying  presented  a  number  of  petitions 
for  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the  District,  and  the  Speaker  having  decided  that, 
under  the  order  of  the  House,  they  were  to  be  laid  on  the  table,  Mr.  Adams  ap 
pealed  from  the  decision  of  the  Chair.  On  ordering  the  main  question  to  be 


tfce  yeas  were  129,  nays  48,  Mr.  Bell  voting  with  Adams,  Slade,  &  Co.,  in  the 
negative.  On  sustaining  the  decision  of  the  Chair,  the  yeas  were  145,  nays  32, 
Mr.  Bell  dodging  the  vote  ! 

Mr.  Adams  then  presented  another  similar  petition,  and  on  the  Speaker  reite 
rating  his  decision,  Mr.  Adams  again  appealed,  and  the  Speaker  was  sustained ; 
yeas  170,  nays  3.  Mr.  Bell  again  refused  to  vote.  Pages  118 — 119. 

This  contest  went  on  in  this  way  until  the  6th  of  February,  when  Mr.  Adams 
attempted  to  introduce  a  petition  from  slaves  asking  for  the  abolition  of  slavery. 
This  threw  the  House  into  a  furor  of  excitement.  Several  resolutions  were  intro 
duced  in  reference  to  his  conduct :  one  to  expel  him ;  another,  to  bring  him  before 
the  bar  of  the  House  to  receive  the  censure  of  the  Speaker ;  and  still  another, 
declaring  that  he  was  guilty  of  a  contempt,  &c.  A  motion  was  made  to  lay  these 
resolutions  on  the  table,  which  was  voted  down,  yeas  50,  nays  144,  Mr.  Bell  voting 
in  the  affirmative.  Another  motion  was  made  to  lay  the  whole  matter  on  the 
table,  which  was  again  negatived,  Mr.  Bell  again  voting  in  the  affirmative. 

The  question  then  recurred  upon  resolutions  offered  by  Mr.  Patton  as  an 
amendment  to  the  other  resolutions.  The  first  declared  against  the  right  of  offer 
ing  petitions  from  slaves.  Mr.  Bell  screwed  up  his  courage  to  vote  for  it.  The 
second,  for  arresting  all  further  proceedings  in  the  matter,  and  excusing  Mr. 
Adams,  was  voted  down,  ayes  22,  noes  137 — Mr.  Bell  voting  with  the  illustrious 
22  to  shield  and  protect  his  abolition  friend  ! 

These  repeated  insults  aggravated  the  southern  members  very  much;  and  when, 
on  the  20th  of  December,  1837,  Mr.  Slade  presented  a  petition  for  the  abolition 
of  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  moved  its  reference  to  a  select  committee, 
with  instructions  to  report  a  bill  in  accordance  with  the  prayer  of  the  petition, 
and  then  proceeded  to  deliver  a  most  exciting  and  violent  harangue  upon  the 
subject,  the  House  was  thrown  into  the  wildest  state  of  excitement.  Hon.  Thos. 
H.  Benton  thus  describes  the  scene  in  his  "  Thirty  Years7  View :" 

"The  most  angry  and  portentous  debate  which  had  yet  taken  place  occurred  at  this  time 
in  the  House  of  Representatives.  It  was  brought  on  by  Mr.  William  Slade,  of  Vermont, 
who,  besides  presenting  petitions  of  the  usnal  abolition  character,  and  moving  to  refer 
them  to  a  committee,  moved  their*reference  to  a  select  committee,  with  instructions  to  re 
port  a  bill  in  conformity  with  their  prayer.  This  motion,  inflammatory  and  irritating  in 
itself,  and  without  practical  legislative  object,  as  the  great  majority  of  the  House  was 
known  to  be  opposed  to  it,  was  rendered  still  more  exasperating  by  the  manner  of  sup 
porting  it." 

Repeated  efforts  were  made  by  southern  members  to  prevent  the  progress  of 
the  speech  by  calls  to  order  and  motions  to  adjourn;  but  Slade  having  the  floor, 
refused  to  yield  it,  and  was  suffered  to  proceed.  The  excitement  was  intense. 
At  last  Mr.  McKay,  of  North  Carolina,  made  a  point  of  order  which  the  Speaker 
sustained,  and  Slade  was  forced  to  give  way,  still,  however,  keeping  his  feet,  with 
the  intention  of  resuming  his  speech,  if  possible.  Mr.  Rencher,  another  member 
from  North  Carolina,  seized  the  opportunity  thus  afforded  of  getting  the  floor, 
and  moved  an  adjournment.  The  contest  had  been  bitter  and  violent  to  the  last 
degree,  and  the  House  was  in  a  tempest.  The  South  and  the  conservative  men 
of  the  North  voted  for  the  adjournment,  while  Slade  and  his  backers  opposed  it. 
The  list  of  nays  was  headed  by  John  Quincy  Adams,  and  numbered  only  63, 
among  whom  was  included  the  whole  Abolition  strength  in  the  House.  Three 
nominal  southern  men  only  voted  against  adjourning,  so  as  to  enable  Slade  to 
continue  his  speech,  and  one  of  them  was  JOHN  BELL,  of  Tennessee. 

"  This  opposition  to  adjournment,"  says  Mr.  BENTON,  "was  one  of  the  worst  features  of  that 
unhappy  day's  work — the  only  effect  of  keeping  the  House  together  being  to  increase  irri 
tation  and  to  multiply  the  chances  for  an  outbreak.  From  the  beginning,  Southern  mem 
bers  had  been  in  favor  of  it,  and  essayed  to  accomplish  it,  but  were  prevented  by  the  tenacity 
with  which  Mr.  SLADE  kept  possession  of  the  floor;  and  now,  at  last,  when  it  was  time  to 
adjourn  any  -way — when  the  House  was  in  a  condition  in  which  no  good  could  be  expected, 


and  great  harm  might  be 'apprehended,  there  were  sixty-three  members,  being  nearly 
third  of  the  House,  willing  to  continue  it  in  session." 

In  order  to  avoid  these  scenes,  on  the  next  day  a  resolution  was  offered  that 
all  abolition  petitions  should  be  laid  on  the  table  without  being  debated,  printed, 
read,  or  referred.  On  ordering  the  main  question  to  be  put,  in  order  to  bring 
the  House  to  a  vote  on  the  resolution,  Mr.  Bell  voted  in  the  negative  witk 
Adams,  Slade  &  Co.  The  question  then  recurring  on  the  passage  of  the  resolu 
tion,  Mr.  Bell  found  it  convenient  to  dodge  the  vote.  Pages  41,  45,  Congress 
ional  Globe,  2d  Session  25th  Congress. 

Again,  during  this  same  session,  (page  474,)  Mr.  Adams,  in  a  speech  relating 
to  the  annexation  of  Texas,  going  off  on  the  right  of  slaves  to  petition  Congress 
for  their  freedom,  and  stating  that  he  should  have  no  hesitancy  in  presenting 
guch  a  petition  from  a  slave,  was  called  to  order  by  the  Speaker.  Mr.  Adams 
appealed  from  the  decision  of  the  Chair.  The  House  sustained  the  decision  of 
the  Chair,  every  man  voting  in  the  affirmative  except  the  Abolitionists,  who  voted 
no,  and  Mr.  Bell,  who  did  not  vote  at  all. 

At  the  next  session,  being  the  3d  session  of  the  25th  Congress,  Mr.  Atherton 
brought  forward  his  celebrated  resolutions  concerning  the  power  of  Congress  over 
the  subject  of  slavery.  The  last  resolution  was  in  these  words  : 

"Every  petition,  memorial,  resolution,  proposition  or  paper  touching  or  relating  in  aay 
way  or  to  any  extent  whatever  to  slavery  as  aforesaid,  or  the  abolition  thereof,  shall,  OB. 
the  presentation  thereof,  without  any  further  action  thereon,  be  laid  upon  the  table  without 
being  debated,  printed  or  referred." 

Various  motions  were  made  to  stave  off  a  vote  on  these  resolutions.  A  call  of 
the  House  was  moved  for  the  purpose  of  consuming  time,  when  all  but  nino 
members  answered  to  their  names,  being  a  remarkably  full  House.  In  order  to 
get  to  a  vote  on  the  resolutions,  a  motion  was  made  to  dispense  with  the  call, 
when  Mr.  Bell  voted  with  Adams,  Slade  &  Co.,  in  the  negative.  The  call  wa* 
dispensed  with,  however,  and  the  House  about  to  come  to  a  vote,  when  up  sprang 
Mr.  Bell  and  moved  to  adjourn,  and  this,  too,  when  the  House  had  been  in  ses 
sion  only  one  hour  and  forty  minutes.  The  House  refused  to  adjourn  in  spite  of 
the  votes  of  Bell,  Adams,  Slade  &  Co.  The  question  then  recurred  on  ordering 
the  main  question  to  be  put,  the  object  of  which  was  to  bring  the  House  to  a  vote 
on  the  resolution.  Mr.  Bell  again  voted  with  Adams,  Slade  &  Co.,  in  the  nega 
tive.  A  motion  to  adjourn  was  then  again  made,  in  order  to  consume  time  and 
delay  a  vote  on  the  resolution.  And,  true  to  his  Abolition  friends,  we  find  Mr. 
Bell  again  voting  with  them  in  the  affirmative.  But  the  House  refused  to  adjourn, 
and  Mr.  Bell  had  to  "toe  the  mark."  All  his  efforts  to  stave  off  the  question 
and  dodge  the  vote  were  ineffectual,  and  he  was  compelled  to  face  "  the  music." 
He  voted  for  all  the  propositions  until  it  came  to  the  last  one,  given  above,  in 
reference  to  the  disposal  of  abolition  petitions.  A  noted  Abolitionist  from  Penn 
sylvania  moved  to  lay  this  resolution  on  the  table ;  Mr.  Bell  voted  in  the  ainrm- 
tive  with  his  Abolition  friends,  Adams,  Slade  &  Co.  But  the  House  refused  to 
lay  it  on  the  table,  and  the  question  recurring  on  its  passage,  Mr.  Bell  voted 
against  it,  in  company  with  Adams,  Slade  &  Co.  Pages  27,  28, 

The  next  day,  (page  33,)  Mr.  Adams  moved  to  suspend  the  rules  in  order  to 
allow  him  to  offer  a  resolution  to  virtually  repeal  the  Atherton  resolutions,  when 
Mr.  Bell  dodged  the,  vote  ! 

We  come  now  to  the  26th  Congress.  At  its  opening,  Mr.  Wise  rose  and  said, 
that  "  with  a  view  of  preventing  the  strife  which  had  heretofore  agitated  the 
House  and  country,"  he  now  took  the  earliest  opportunity  t9  move  a  suspension 
of  the  rules  of  the  House  for  the  purpose  of  submitting  a  resolution  that  in  futuro 
all  petitions  for  the  abolition  of  slavery  "  should  be  considered  as  objected  to," 
and  laid  on  the  table  without  debate.  The  point  which  the 


6 

driving  at  was^to  get  Congress  to  admit,  inferentially,  by  the  reception  of  thes€ 
petitions*and  their  reference  to  committees,  that  Congress  had  power  over  the 
subject,  and  to  open  the  door  for  the  agitation  of  the  question.  These  were  the 
objects  at  which  they  were  driving,  and  Mr.  Bell  was  willing  to  gratify  them,  for 
he  immediately  rose  and  inquired  whether  it  would  be  in  order  for  him  to  move 
an  amendment  to  the  resolution  of  Mr.  Wise,  "  that  all  these  petitions  be  refer 
red  to  the  Committee  for  the  District  of  Columbia  without  debate ;"  and,  being 
told  that  "  it  would  be  wholly  inconsistent "  with  the  original  resolution,  replied, 
"  then  I  will  introduce  a  new  resolution  to  this  effect."  Mr.  Adams  expressed 
himself  satisfied  with  Mr.  Bell's  plan,  except  that  he  thought  such  petitions  as 
did  not  relate  to  slavery  in  the  District  should  go  to  a  different  committee.  He 
desired  "  that  these  petitions  should  be  received  by  the  House,  treated  with  re 
spect,  and  referred  to  appropriate  committees/'  Mr.  Bell  replied,  that  "it  had 
always  been  his  opinion  that  the  best  mode  of  disposing  of  these  petitions  would 
be  to  refer  them  to  a  committee,  and  hence  it  was  that  he  had  proposed  to  intro 
duce  a  resolution  of  the  kind  before  alluded  to."  Page  89. 

The  day  following,  Mr.  Wise  renewed  his  resolution  to  lay  all  abolition  peti- 
tiens  on  the  table,  and  moved  a  suspension  of  the  rules  in  order  to  get  his  resolu 
tion  before  the  House.  Mr.  Bell  dodged  the  vote,  though  he  voted  immediately 
before  and  immediately  after.  A  resolution  was  then  introduced  to  raise  a  select 
committee,  to  whom  would  be  referred  all  abolition  petitions,  the  very  thing  the 
Abolitionists  most  desired,  as  it  would  give  them  an  opportunity  to  agitate  and 
discuss  the  question,  and  on  the  motion  to  suspend  the  rules  for  its  adoption,  Mr. 
Bell  voted  with  Adams,  Slade  &  Co.,  in  the  affirmative.  Two  weeks  later,  Jan 
uary  13,  1840,  abolition  petitions  were  presented,  and  their  reception  moved. 
Mr.  Johnson,  of  Tennessee,  moved  to  lay  the  question  of  reception  on  the  table. 
And  on  this  motion  Mr.  Bell,  though  shown  to  be  present  by  the  Journal,  did 
not  vote.  Page  119. 

On  the  15th  of  January,  we  again  see  him  voting  with  Adams,  Slade  &  Co.,  to 
lay  on  the  table  a  resolution  that  all  abolition  petitions  be  laid  on  the  table  with 
out  being  debated,  printed,  read,  or  referred. 

It  had  now  become  absolutely  necessary,  in  the  opinion  of  Congress,  to  discoun 
tenance  and  prevent  any  further  discussion  over  abolition  petitions,  praying  Con 
gress  to  do  what  it  had  often  been  solemnly  declared  it  had  not  the  power  to  do, 
and  therefore  they  were  not  bound  upon  any  principle  to  consider  such  petitions. 
On  the  28  tli  of  January,  1840,  Mr.  W.  Cost  Johnson,  a  leading  Whig  member 
from  Maryland,  offered  what  was  afterwards  known  as  the  famous  "  Twenty-first 
Rule,"  declaring  "  that  no  petition,  memorial,  resolution,  or  paper,  praying  the 
abolition  of  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  or  any  State  or  Territory,  or  the 
slave  trade  between  the  States  or  Territories  of  the  United  States,  in  which  it 
now  exists,  shall  be  received  by  this  House,  or  entertained  in  any  way  whatever." 

Mr.  Johnson  said,  on  presenting  this  as  an  amendment  to  the  rules  of  the 
House,  that  "the  resolutions  which  had  been  presented  by  others  on  this  subject 
were  too  vague  to  meet  his  approbation,  and  he  therefore  worded  this  so  as  to 
leave  no  ambiguity,  so  that  when  a  gentleman  voted  he.  could  not  deceive  his  con 
stituents^  and  could  clearly  define  hisposition."  "  He,  (Mr.  Johnson,  Whig,)  called 
upon  those  opposed  to  the  Abolitionists  to  vote  for  it,  and  kill  the  hydra  abolition 
in  an  instant,  in  such  a  manner  that  it  could  not  germinate  its  species  again." 

The  question  was  then  taken  on  ordering  the  main  question  to  be  put,  which 
was  decided  in  the  affirmative — yeas  147,  nays  61 — Mr.  Bell  voting  with  Adams, 
Slade  &  Co.,  in  the  negative.  The  question  then  came  up  on  the  adoption  of  the 
resolution,  when  Mr,  Bell  again  voted  with  his  abolition  friends,  Adams,  Slade 
£  Co.,  against  it.  It  was  not  to  be  wondered  at,  then,  that  Mr.  Bell  received  the 
votes  of  Adams,  Slade  &  Co.,  for  Speaker  at  three  several  Congresses.  They 


fcnew  their  man,  and  the  pertinacity  with  which  they  stuck  to  Him  during1  this 
^the  26th)  Congress,  when  parties  were  close,  showed  that  they  had  confidence 
in  his  fidelity  to  their  designs. 

On  the  13th  of  April,  Mr.  Adams  presented  an  abolition  resolution  from  Mas 
sachusetts,  on  the  subject  of  abolition  petitions,  when  a  motion  was  made  to  lay 
it  on  the  table,  which  was  adopted,  Mr.  Bell,  with  Adams,  Slade  &  Co.,  voting 
in  the  negative. 

Shortly  after  this,  Mr.  Bell  went'  out  of  Congress,  and  did  not  return  again 
until  December,  1847. 

[t  thu-*  appears  by  the  record,  (the  volume  and  page  of  which  we  have  been 
cartful  to  give,  so  that  every  oae  may  examine  for  himself,)  that  upon  every 
important  question  involving  the  rights  of  slavery,  from  the  time  he  abandoned 
the  Democratic  party  and  joined  hands  with  the  New  England  Federalists  in 
1835  to  1841,  when  he  left  the  House,  he  voted  uniformly  with  the  Abolition- 
i  t-*,  Adams,  Slade  &  Co.,  and  against  the  great  body  of  national  men,  North  and 
South. 

We  now  propose  to  show  that,  with  one  or  two  exceptions,  when  he  played  the 
fire-eater  in  order  to  make  a  show  of  fidelity  to  the  interests  of  his  constituents 
just  before  an  election  in  Tennessee,  he  has  continued  to  prove  faithless  to  his 
own  section,  and  willing  to  do  the  work  of  the  Abolitionists,  so  far  as  he  dared. 

THE  CLAYTON  COMPROMISE  OF  1848. 

Representing  a  slaveholding  community,  and  dependent,  so  far  as  local  popu 
larity  was  concerned,  upon  a  seeming  readiness  to  sanction  and  maintain  the  rights 
ind  interests  of  slavery,  it  would  have  been  the  sheerest  madness  in  Mr.  Bell 
aver  to  have  avowed  himself  an  open  enemy  to  the  institution.  It  matters  but 
little,  ho^wever,  to  the  South  what  his  sentiments  are  on  the  subject,  so  his  acts 
and  his  vote*^  have  been  given  to  betray  the  interests  and  abandon  the  rights  of 
the  slaveholding  States  of  the  Union.  His  record,  as  we  have  already  shown, 
thus  tar  discloses  with  what  alacrity,  for  the  bait  of  the  Speakership,  he  could 
consort  with  the  Abolitionists.  Let  us  now  follow  him  in  his  advent  into  the 
Senate  in  1847. 

The  acquisition  of  territory  from  Mexico,  and  the  necessity  of  forming  a  Ter 
ritorial  government  for  Oregon,  as  well  as  New  Mexico  and  California,  led  to  a 
heated  and  bitter  controversy  on  the  slavery  question.  The  Federal  Abolition 
ists  of  the  North,  under  the  lead  of  Hale,  Hamlin,  Chase,  G-iddings  &  Co.,  were 
determined  to  expel  slavery  from  those  Territories  by  the  passage  of  the  Wilmot 
Proviso.  The  excitement  ran  high,  and  at  one  time  threatened  the  peace  of  the 
country.  In  this  emergency,  the  Senate,  ever  conservative,  sought  to  cast  oil 
upon  the  troubled  waters,  and  allay  the  excitement.  They  raised  a  Committee 
of  eight,  consisting  of  four  Democrats  and  four  Whigs,  one-half  from  the  North, 
and  one-half  from  the  South.  John  M.  Clayton,  of  Delaware,  a  most  distinguished, 
-•'•blc.  and  prominent  Whig,  was  the  Chairman  of  the  Committee,  and  made  so, 
ii»o.  by  a  Democrat!  5  Senate,  in  order  to  show  that  they  regarded  the  settlement 
of  this  question  hi gh  above  all  party  considerations.  Besides  him,  there  were  on 
the  Committee  the  following  distinguished  Whigs  :  Underwood  of  Kentucky, 
Hark  of  Rhode  Islajid,  and  Phelps  of  Vermont.  The  Democrats  were,  Calhoun 
of  Sourh  Carolina,  Atchison  of  Missouri,  Bright  of  Indiana,  and  Dickinson  of 
New  York.  On  the  18th  of  July,  1848,  the  Committee,  through  Mr.  Clayton, 
reported  a  bill  providing  Territorial  governments  for  New  Mexico,  California,  and 
Oregon.  On  the  subject  of  slavery,  it  provided  that  the  Territorial  Legislature 
should  pass  no  law  prohibiting  or  establishing  it ;  but  that  the  question  should 
be  referred  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  for  their  decision.  Mr. 
Clayton,  on  presenting  the  bill,  remarked : 


"  This  bill  resolves  the  whole  question  between  the  North  and  the  South  into  a  constitu 
tional  and  judicial  question.  It  only  asks  of  men  of  all  sections  to  stand  by  the  Constitu 
tion,  and  suffer  that  to  settle  the  difference  by  its  own  tranquil  operation.  *  *  * 
There  is  no  principle  sacrificed.  Any  man  who  desires  discord  will  oppose  the  bill.  But  he 
who  does  not  desire  to  distract  the  country  by  a  question  merely  political,  will  be  able  by 
voting  for  this  bill  to  refer  the  whole  matter  to  the  judiciary." 

Messrs.  Calhoun,  Atchison,  Berrien,  Butler,  Clayton,  Jeff.  Davis,  Benton, 
Borland,  Downs,  Foote,  Houston,  Hunter,  Mangum,  King,  and  ot'her  Southern 
men,  expressed  their  willingness  to  refer  the  matter  to  the  Supreme  Court,  and 
abide  their  decision.  So  said,  also,  Bright,  Atherton,  Breese,  Dickinson,  Han- 
negan,  Phelps,  and  other  conservative  northern  men.  Mr.  Hale,  the  noted  Abo 
litionist  from  New  Hampshire,  assailed  the  bill,  stating  : 

"  I  have  no  confidence  in  the  Supreme  Court  as  now  constituted,  and  I  am  unwilling 
that  that  Court  (composed  of  a  majority  of  slaveholders)  should  decide  the  question. 
Again,  the  bill  came  short  of  the  wishes  of  the  people,  who,  throughout  the  whole  length 
and  breadth  of  the  land,  were  demanding  that  slavery  should  be  abolished." 

Mr.  Hamlin,  the  present  Black  Republican  candidate  for  the  Vice  Presidency, 
"  designated  the  bill  as  guaranteeing  and  perpetuating  slavery  in  the  Territories/' 
Mr.  Corwin  said : 

"You  have  made  the  land  (Mexico)  red  with  blood  under  the  pretence  that  you  have 

gone  thither  to  give  freedom  to  the  captive.     You  have  shown,  as  he  had  always  anticipated, 

that  this  was  all  hypocrisy,  and  that  you  now  desire  to  fasten  the  iron  heel,  not  only  of 

peon  slavery  but  of  negro  slavery  upon  them.     He  protested  against  this  course  of  hypoc- 

isy  and  murder  and  cruelty,  transcending  in  horror  the  bloody  code  of  Draco." 

On  the  26th  of  July,  1848,  a  vote  was  taken  on  the  bill,  and  Mr.  Bell  voted 
with  Hale.  Hamlin,  and  Corwin  against  it;  voted  with  the  Abolitionists,  and 
against  his  own  section  ;  voted  with  agitators  and  mischief-makers,  and  against 
the  great  body  of  conservative  men,  to  defeat  a  bill  whose  object  and  purpose 
were  to  give  the  South  an  equal  chance  in  the  Territories  with  the  North,  and  to 
end  this  slavery  agitation  and  restore  peace  to  the  country.  From  the  foundation 
of  the  Government  until  this  time,  never  was  a  vote  given  in  either  House  of 
Congress  more  disastrous  to  the  interests  of  the  South  and  more  perilous  to  the 
union  of  these  States  than  this  vote  of  Mr.  Bell.  What  was  the  result  of  that 
vote  ?  Encouraged  by  his  example,  eight  Southern  Whigs  joined  the  united  free 
soil  vote  in  the  House,  aad  succeeded  in  defeating  it  and  adopting  in  its  stead  a 
bill  securing  a  territorial  government  to  Oregon  alone,  with  the  Wilmot  Proviso 
in  it,  prohibiting  the  introduction  of  slavery  therein.  When  it  reached  the 
Senate,  it  was  there  amended  by  adopting  the  "Missouri  Compromise"  and 
extending  it  to  the  Pacific  ocean.  The  House  subsequently  rejected  the  amend 
ment  and  sent  the  bill  back  to  the  Senate  in  its  original  form.  The  question  now 
came  before  the  Senate  upon  a  motion  to  recede  from  its  amendment,  and  Mr. 
Bell,  true  to  his  old  habits,  while  expressing  his  intention  to  vote  against  receding 
(doubtless  knowing  there  were  enough  without  him,)  argued  with  those  who  were 
for  receding.  He  said  that — 

"He  desired  to  see  the  Oregon  bill  passed,  even  without  this  (Missouri  Compromise) 
restriction;  and  he  could  not  use  it  as  a  means  of  attack  on  gentlemen.  Whether  he  could 
vote  for  it  or  not  was  doubtful,  regarding  as  he  did  the  feelings  of  the  friends  with  whom 
he  was  associated.  He  controverted  the  doctrine  [that  had  been  advanced  by  the  oppo 
nents  of  the  Wilmot  Proviso]  that  even  if  the  whole  country,  North  and  South,  was  opposed 
to  slavery,  Congress  had  no  power  to  legislate  on  the  subject.  He  thought  the  Missouri 
Compromise  HAD  settled  that  point."  (See  Cong.  Globe,  1st  ses.  30th  Cong.,  page  1074 — 5. ) 

The  results  of  Mr.  Bell's  vote  on  this  occasion  against  the  Clayton  Compromise 
were  :  1st,  the  passage  of  the  Wilmot  proviso  over  the  Territory  of  Oregon  j 
2d,  keeping  open  the  slavery  agitation  in  reference  to  New  Mexico  and  Cali 
fornia,  and  the  excitement  which  thereupon  ensued,  which  so  threatened  the 


fc 

peace  and  stability  of  this  Union  as  i»  :ull  Mr.  OUy  from  the  quiet  and  repose 
of  his  home,  to  beat  back  the  tide  of  fanaticism,  and  give  pea^e  once  more  to  a 
distracted  country;  and  third,  the  exclu  ion  of  the  South  from  the  whole  of  Cali 
fornia — for  California  finding  herself  without  the  protection  of  this  Government, 
framed  the  next  year  a  State  Constitution,  and  in  order  to  gain  admission  into 
the  Union,  prohibited  slavery  therein.  We  entertain  not  a  particle  of  a  doubt, 
that  had  the  Clayton  Compromise  passed,  the  southern  portion  of  California 
would  have  been  to-day  a  slave  State.  Thus  bv  the  vote,  example,  and  influ 
ence  of  John  Bell,  a  Senator  representing  a  slav?holding  people,  was  a  fair  com 
promise  of  the  slavery  question  defeated,  the  Wilmot  proviso  thrust  down  the 
throats  of  the  South,  the  South  deprived  of  a  good  opportunity  of  having  a  slave 
State  in  California,  and  the  slavery  question  lefc  open,  to  rankle  in  the  public 
mind,  and  furnish  fuel  for  the  Aboliiton  agitators.  Congress  adjourned  in  a  few 
weeks,  and  Mr.  Bell  returned  to  Tennessee,  and  engaged  in  advocating  the  elec 
don  of  Gen.  Taylor  to  the  Presidency;  and  in  a  speech  a--,  Murfreesboro',  on  the 
21st  of  September,  reported  in  the  Nashville  Banner,  he  reviewed  rhe  action  (hat 
had  been  had  on  the  Oregon  bill,  saying : 

"  He  was  not  willing  to  defeat  that  bill  by  any  direct  vote  or  movement  on  bis  part.  Hft 
therefore  voted  agaiust  the  proposition  for  postponement,  lie  was  glad  the  bill  had  passed, 
as  be  believed  its  defeat  would  have  done  mischief  at  the  North.  He  did  not  feel  called 
upon  to  vote  for  it,  though  he  was  not  clearly  certain  thai  Conr/rens  hud  no/  the  power  to  dis- 
oose  of  the  whole  subject.  The  Missouri  Compromise.  .c<>  long  acquiesced  in.  went  -far  to 
settle  that  question." 

In  this  same  speech  he  declared  : 

"  What  Ins  (General  Taylor's)  opinions  were  on  the  subject  of  the  constitutional  power 
of  Congress  over  the  question  of  slavery  in  the  new  Territories,  he  knew  not,  nor  did  lie  de 
sire  to  [cno^L'." 

It  will  thus  be  seen  that  he  abandoned  the  South  upon  the  first  grave  question 
that  came  up  after  he  entered  the  Senate,  involving  an  important  constitutional 
right,  dear  to  the  South,  and  which  was  being  recklessly  warred  upon  by  Corwin, 
Hale,  Hamlin  &  Co.,  and  which  National  Democrats  and  \Yings,  North  and 
^'ouch,  were  endeavoring  to  compromise  upon  the  plan  of  relerriug  to  <>nd  abiding 
by  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court — a  plan  which  Mr.  Cluycon,  a  good  Henry 
Clay  Whig,  said  (<  any  man  who  desired  discord  will  oppose,  but  he  who  does  not 
desire  to  distract  the  country  will  vote  for."  And  having  aided  in  defeating  this 
compromise,  he  then  joined  the  North  in  favoring  the  passage  of  a  bill  for  Ore 
gon,  with  the  Wilmot  proviso  attached,  endeavoring  to  shield  himself  by  simply 
recording  his  vote  in  the  negative,  and  in  favoring  an  amendment  extending  the 
Missouri  restriction,  but  declaring  at  the  game  time,  and  subsequently,  that  he 
thought  the  passage  of  the  old  Missouri  Compromise  restriction  had  determined 
the  power  of  Congress  to  apply  the  Wilmot  Proviso,  excluding  the  slave  property 
of  the  South  from  the  common  territory.  Well  might  General  Zollicoffer,  the 
Whig  Representative  in  Congress  from  Mr.  Bell's  own  district,  say  : 

"The  open  efforts  of  avowed  Abolitionists  are  impotent  for  harm,  because  the  masses  of 
the  American  people  strongly  reprobate  them  as  inimical  to  the  Constitution  and  to  the 
stability  of  the  Government;  but  when  Southern  statesmen,  whose  patriotic  purposes  are  not 
doubted,  gravely  declare  that  THEY  believe  the  Wilmot  Proviso  is  constitutional,  the  politician* 
and  people  of  the  North  are  not  slow  to  adopt  this  theory  ;  and  then  the  only  question  left 
with  them  is,  Is  it  expedient  to  enact  the  Wilmot  Proviso  ?  Believing,  as  the  masses  in  the 
North  do,  that  slavery  is  wrong,  regarding  it  as  obnoxious,  as  leading  Democrats  do,  whom 
my  colleague  regards  as  sound  and  true  statesmen,  is  it  wonderful  what  demonstrations  we 
have  in  the  North  in  favor  of  the  Wilmot  Proviso,  after  the  surrender  of  the  constitutional 
question  by  those  trusted  at  the  South  ?" 


10 

TUE  COMPROMISE  MEASURES  OP  1850. 

Congress  met  in  December,  1849,  under  peculiar  circumstances.  The  country 
was  wild  with  excitement,  disturbing  the  public  peace  and  threatening  a  dissolu 
tion  of  the  Union.  Mad  and  bad  men  at  the  North  adhered  to  r,heir  determina 
tion  to  override  the  constitutional  rights  of  the  South,  to  break  down  the  equality 
of  the  States,  and  prohibit  slavery  in  the  Territories.  Party  was  forgotten,  and 
good  men  everywhere  were  conferring  together  to  prevent  the  outrage  and  pre 
serve  the  Government  from  a  bloody  issue.  Mr.  Clay,  seeing  the  great  danger 
in  which  the  country  was,  left  the  comforts  of  home  and  retirement,  to  mingle 
once  more  in  the  exciting  scenes,  in  order  to  restore  peace  and  quiet  to  the  Unior;. 
It  was  the  last  great  drama  of  his  life.  He  came  not  as  the  leader  of  a  party, 
but  as  a  representative  of  American  patriotism.  He  brought  forward  his  plan 
of  adjustmen -.,  embodied  in  a  series  of  resolutions.  He  proposed  the  adoiist-ion 
of  California^  the  organization  of  territorial  governments  for  New  Mexico  and 
Utah,  without  the  Wilmot  Proviso,  aad  upon  the  principle  of  non-intervention 
according  to  the  Clayton  compromise-  a  more  stringent  fugitive  slave  law,  and 
peaceable  adjustment  of  the  boundary  question  between  New  Mexico  and  Texas 
Instead  of  falling  in  with  Mr.  Clay,  and  giving  him  his  support,  Mr.  Bell  sough! 
to  embarrass  and  thwart  the  efforts  of  those  friendly  to  a  settlement  of  the  que.s 
tion  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  South  and  the  conservative  men  of  the  North.  Up, 
therefore,  he  jumped,  and  proposed  his  plan.  Ana  what  was  it?  By  the  terms 
of  i  he  annexation  of  Texas,  it  was  in  the  power  of  the  people  of  Texas,  whenever 
they  so  desired,  to  form  four  additional  States  out  of  their  territory,  making 
five  in  all  Their  right  in  this  matter  Mr.  Webster  pronounced  4i  Complete,  final, 
and  irrevocable/1  Yet,  John  Bell,  a  Southern  Senator,  proposed  to  admit  only 
two  addi.ioDil  States,  to  be  formed  out  of  the  Territory  of  Texas;  and,  said  he, 
"  when  admitted  they  will  be  the  last  of  their  race.  They  will  and  must  close 
the  account,  in  my  judgment,  of  slave  States,  then  and  forever,  or  for  as  lou^as 
this  Union  lasts."  Here,  then,  his  firs';  proposition  was  to  surrender  a  right, 
11  complete,  final,  and  irrevocable,"  to  form  four  more  slave  States  out  of  Texav 
Did  he  prove  thus  treacherous  to  the  South  out  of  ignorance  ?  Let  him  answer: 

"This  number,  (two,  ns  he  proposed,)  yon  will  recollect,  Mr  President,  falls  far  short 
of  the  calculations  of  Southern  gentlemen;  of  the  advocates  of  the  annexation  of  Texas, 
when  tls.-it  question  was  presented  to  the  American  people.  Four  or  five  slave  States,  it 
was  estimated,  might  and  would  be  carved  out  of  that  Territory.  Four  slave  States  might 
be  carved  out  of  that  Territory,  because  there  is  a  country  extensive  enough,  rich  enough,  fertile 
enough,  to  sustain  a  population  that  would  authorize  its  division  into  four  States  ;  but  with  tht 
arrangement  now  proposed,  (his  own,]  it  would  be  IMPOSSIBLE  that  such  a  project  should  be 
ever  entertained.  *  *  *  Therefore,  sir,  there  can  be  no  prospect  of  the  further  admission 
of  slave  States  into  the  Union  at  any  time." 

Thus  we  see  Mr.  Bell  knowingly  and  wilfully  proposing  to  surrender  a  tf  com 
plete,  final,  and  irrevocable"  right  to  the  formation  of  five  slave  States,  to  be 
carved  out  of  Texas  ! 

His  next  resolution  was  aho  fatal  to  Southern  rights.  He  proposed  to  take 
two  and  a  half  degrees  from  Texas,  lying  north  of  ihe  34th  parallel  of  north 
latitude,  and  attach  it;  to  New  Mexico,  with  the  avowed  intention  of  making  it 
a  free  State.  But  we  will  let  him  tell  the  story  in  his  own  words : 

"  The  first  point  which  will  be  suggested  to  the  minds  of  honorable  Senators  by  this 
resolution  is,  that  here  is  a  surrender  of  tivo  and  a  half  degrees  of  slave  territory  to  be  there 
after  free  territory.  *  It  will  be  remembered  that  the  Missouri  Compromise  line  is 
the  parallel  of  30°  30'.  Thus  two  and  a  half  degrees  of  slave  territory  will  be  given  up  to 
become  free,  as  1  think  will  be  conceded  in  the  candid  judgment  of  all.  *  *  *  While 
the  present  organization  of  material  creation  stands,  African  slavery  can  never  find  a  foot 
hold  in  Mew  Mexico." — Cong.  Globe,  1st  sess.  31st  Cong.,  page  436. 


11 

Thus,  again,  for  the  purpose  of  forming  a  free  State  and  despoiling  Texas  of 
her  slave  territory,  we  see  Mr.  Bell  gravely  proposing  to  surrender  two  and  a 
half  degrees  of  slave  terrkory  to  "free  soil !"  Comment  is  unnecessary. 

His  next  resolution  proposed  the  admission  of  California. 

Not  a  word  is  said  about  tiie  fugitive  slave  law.  No;  all  his  -efforts  were  to 
strengtlen  the  "  powerful  North"  at  the  expense  of  the  South.  His  proposition, 
together  with  all  others,  were  referred  to  the  committee  of  thirteen,  of  which 
Mr.  Clay  was  the  chairman,  who  reported  a  series  of  measures  known  as  the 
"Compromise  measures  of  1850."  What  was  the  course  of  Mr.  Bell?  Tet 
nessee  had  spoken  in  trumpet  tones  in  favor  of  those  measures,  aud  instructed 
her  Senators  to  vote  for  them.  This  placed  it  out  of  the  power  of  Mr.  Bell  to 
vote  against  them,  but  it  did  not  prevent  his  speaking  against  them  and  seeking 
to  defeat  them.  The  issue  was  between  the  President's  (Gen.  Taylor)  plan  ai  ;i 
the  adjustment  presented  by  the  Committee  of  Thirteen.  For  a  better  under 
standing  of  the  matter,  we  quote  from  a  speech  of  Mr.  Clay,  delivered  on  the 
21st  of  May  : 

"Now,  what  is  the  plan  of  the  President?  I  will  describe  it  by  a  simile  in  a  manner 
which  cannot  be  misunderstood.  Here  are  five  wounds:  one,  two,  three,  four,  five — bleeding 
and  threatening  the  well  being  if  not  the  existence  of  the  body  politic.  What  is  the  plan 
of  the  President?  Is  it  to  heal  all  of  these  wounds?  It  is  only  to  heal  one  of  the  five, 
and  to  leave  the  other  four  to  bleed  more  profusely  than  ever,  by  the  sole  admission  of 
California,  even  if  it  should  produce  death  itself.  The  President,  instead  of  proposing  a 
plan  comprehend-ng  all  the  diseases  of  the  country,  looks  only  at  one.  His  recommenda 
tion  does  not  embrace,  and  he  says  nothing  about  the  fugitive  plave  bill  or  the  District  bill ; 
but  he  recommends  that  the  other  two  subjects  of  Territorial  government  and  Texas  bound 
ary,  remain  and  be  left  untouched,  to  cure  therrselves  by  some  law  of  nature,  by  the  vis 
medicatrix  naturae,  or  some  self  remedy,  in  the  success  of  which  I  cannot  perceive  any 
ground  of  the  least  confidence.  * 

"The  recommendation  of  the  President,  as  I  have  already  said,  proposes  the  simple 
introduction  of  California  as  a  State  into  the  Union — a  measure  which,  standing  by  itself, 
has  excited  the  strongest  symptoms  of  dissatisfaction  in  the  Southern  portion  of  the  Con 
federacy.  The  recommendation  proposes  to  leave  all  else  untouched  and  unprovided  for. 
In  such  an  abandonment,  what  will  be  the  condition  of  things?  The  first  approximate 
Territory  to  California  is  Utah,  and  in  what  condition  is  that  left  by  the  President's  Mes 
sage?  Without  any  government  at  all.  Without  even  the  blessing  or  curse,  as  you  may 
choose  to  call  it,  of  a  military  government." 

"And  when  you  come  to  New  Mexico,  what  government  have  you?  A  military  govern 
ment  by  a  Lieutenant  Colonel  of  the  army!  A  Lieutenant  Colonel — a  mere  subordinate  of 
the  army  of  the  United  States — holds  the  government  power  there  in  a  time  of  profound 
peace !  Stand  up3  Whig,  who  can — stand  up,  Democrat,  who  can,  and  defend  the  establishment 
of  a  military  government  in  this  free  and  glorious  Republic,  in  a  time  of  profound  peace  !  Sir, 
we  had  doubts  about  the  authority  of  the  late  President  to  do  this  in  time  of  war,  and  it 
was  cast  as  a  reproach  against  him.  But  here,  in  a  time  of  profound  pence,  it  is  proposed 
by  the  highest  authority,  that  this  government,  that  this  military  government — and  by 
what  authority  it  has  continued  since  peace  ensued,  I  know  not— should  be  continued  in 
definitely,  till  New  Mexico  is  prepared  to  come  as  a  State  into  the  Union.  There  are  now 
about  ten  thousand  people  there,  composed  of  Americans,  Spaniards,  and  Mexicans ;  and 
about  eighty  thousand  or  ninety  thousand  Indians,  civilized,  uncivilized,  half  civilized,  and 
barbarous  people;  and  when  will  they  be  ready  to  come  in  as  a  State?  Sir,  I  say  it  under 
a  full  sense  of  the  responsibility  of  my  position,  that,  if  to-morrow,  with  such  a  population 
and  such  a  Constitution  as  such  a  population  might  make,  they  were  to  come  here  for  ad 
mission  as  a  State,  I,  for  one,  would  not  vote  for  it.  It  would  be  ridiculous ;  it  would  be 
farcical ;  it  would  bring  into  contempt  the  grave  matter  of  forming  Commonwealths  aS 
sovereign  members  of  this  glorious  Union." 

Mr.  Bell  replied  to  Mr.  Clay.  On  the  third  of  July,  1850,  he  commenced 
one  of  the  most  extraordinary  speeches  ever  delivered  in  the  Senate,  and  contin 
ued  it  for  three  days.  In  regard  to  Mr.  Clay's  plan  of  adjustment,  he  said : 

"  I  have  up  to  this  moment  remained  uncommitted  to  it,  as  the  distinguished  chairman 
(Mr.  Clay)  of  the  committee  knows.  *  *  It  has  at  no  time  met  my  cordial  approval. 


13 

*     *     When  the  plan  u!'  such  u=  MtM-ia^i;  i'uils  .--o  f.-ir  s.iovt  of  what  the  Senate  and  the  coun 
try  itud  a  I'ight  to  expect  .A  them,  it  is  u>  uio.  ut  least,  »i  matter  of  deep  regret." 

He  then  proceeded  to  defend  the  President's  plan  in  the  face  of  his  own  former 
proposition,  and  to  suggest  the  most  puerile  objections  to  Mr.  Clay's  adjustment. 
lie  v/as  exceedingly  ingenious  in  his  attacks  upon  it.  He  sought  to  array  the 
ultra  Southern  men  and  the  Abolitionists  aainst  h..  To  the  Southern  men  he 


"  it  is  proposed  by  the  39th  section  of  the  bill,  to  establish  a  Territorial  government  for 
.New  Mexico  *  *  The  extent  of  the  concession  to  the  South,  I  apprehend,  will 
!>*•  found  to  consist  in  the  mere  forbearance  to  employ  odious  and  obnoxious  forms  of  en 
actment,  (the  Wilraot  proviso.)  *  The  principle  of  non-intervention  is  not 

viol.-'  ted,  and  that,  it  is  said,  is  a  great  deal.  *'*•*•'.  I  confess  I  do  not  see  any  sub- 
Htnntinl  concession  to  the  South  in  all  this.  *  #  *-  Suppose  that,  contrary  to 
fill  existing  circumstances  and  presumptions,  this  bill  having  passed,  slavery  should  be  in 
troduced  into  New  Mexico,  and  after  the  lapse  of  years,  when  the  inhabitants  shall  be  au 
thorized  to  form  a  State  constitution,  and  slavery  should  be  recognized  by  its  provisions, 
vrij.'-.t  security  has  the  South  that  with  such  a  constitution,  New  Mexico  will  ever  be  admit 
ted  iuto  the  Union  as  a  State  ?  None  at  all." 

Vet  this  very  same  John  Bell  proposed  only  two  or  three  months  be/ore...  to  rake 
2^  degrees  of  slave  territory  from  Texas,  attach  it  to  this  New  Mexico,  and  hand 
UAU  over  to  the  free-soilers.  Further,  in  this  very  speech,  towards  its  close,  he 
actually  proposed,  in  order  to  array  the  North  against  the  compromise,  to  admit 
this  very  New  Mexico  immediately  as  a  free  St&tel 

Speaking  to  the  ultra  Southern  men,  lie  again  said  : 

"Besides  the  settlement  of  all  the  questions  connected  with  Texas,  I  would  have  adopt 
ed  the  spirit  of  the  Missouri  compromise,  and  set  apart  some  portion  of  the  Territories, 
into  which  the  slaveholder  might  go  with  his  property.  This  1  would  have  considered  u 
substantial  concession  to  the  South  —  a  real  compromise." 

Yet,  in  his  speech  from  which  we  have  heretofore  quoted,  delivered  at  this 
same  session  only  four  months  before  this  one,  we  find  Mr.  Bell  saying  : 

"  I  know  that  many  southern  gentlemen,  for  whose  opinion  I  entertain  a  high  respect, 
cny  that  the  Missouri  compromise  line  whould  at  all  hazards  be  adhered  to.  I  cannot 
agree  with  them.  I  will  not  enter  into  a  discussion  now  upon  that  point.  I  will  only  say, 
that,  even  if  it  could  be  obtained,  even  if  there  could  be  a  recognition  of  slavery  south  of 
that  line,  it  -would  be  a  barren  victory,  for  there  would  be  no  slavery  there.  *  *  So 
that  even  if  this  recognition  should  be  conceded  by  the  North,  I  insist  it  would  be  of  no 
value  to  the  South  " 

Consistent  John  Bell  !  He  next  turned  to  the  North,  and  tried  to  bring  them 
into  opposition  to  the  compromise.  He  sets  out  by  informing  them  that  the 
Wilmot  Proviso  is  not  in  the  bills,  and  that  it  is  not  clear  that  Old  Zaek  would 
veto  it  if  it  was  put  there.  Hear  him  : 

"I  have  said  that  I  neither  knew,  nor  sought  to  know,  General  Taylor's  views  upon  this 
subject  during  the  late  canvass.  /  do  not  now  know  what  General  Taylor  would  do  —  whethei 
he  would  veto  a  bill  containing  the  Wilrnot  Proviso  or  not.  Nor  do  I  believe  the  man  ir> 
iiang  who  can  say,  with  truth,  that  he  is  better  informed  upon  this  subject  than  myself." 

Having  stated  that  he  did  not  understand  General  Cass  to  have  declared  what 
his  course  would  have  been  under  such  circumstances,  he  added  : 

"Sir,  his  objection  to  the  Wilmot  Proviso,  beiny  founded  on  his  opinion  of  what  the  Con 
stitution  authorized,  and  not  upon  any  opinion  favorable  to  the  extension  of  slavery,  it  would 
have  been  an  act  of  unusual  boldness  to  hare  declared  that  he  would  disregard  the.  former  prac 
tice  of  government,  and  given  no  weight  to  the  precedents  of  the  Missouri  Compromise  and 
iJ,e  Oregon  territorial  act." 

Thus  giving  the  North  to  understand  that  General  Taylor,  should  Congress 
pass  the  Wilmot  proviso,  would  not  be  guilty  of  an  act  of  such  unusual  boldness 
as  to  veto  it.  Not  content  with  thi*.  ho  draws  their  attention  to  the  fact  that 
they  are  instructed  to  voj«  for  it.  I)?  snid  : 


13 

"Look,  sir,  to  the  North  and  to  (he  Soutb,  and  -•<?-.•  who  ihoy  are  who  support  the  plan 
of  the  President.  As  to  those  of  the  North,  art,  they  not  pledged  and  tied  to  tho  Wilmot  jpr^r 
viso  by  their  instructions  1  And  have  they  not  already  receded  a  littlp  from  their  platform 
in  coining  to  tho  plan  of  the  President?  " 

Then  still  further,  to  alarm  and  embarrass  those  Northern  men  who  were  dis 
posed  to  go  for  the  compromise,  in  spite  of  instructions,  and  trust  to  the  people  to 
support  them,  Mr.  Bell  said  : 

"  Sir,  from  the  moment  you  pass  this  bill,  and  as  long  a«s  a  territorial  government,  ac 
cording  to  its  provisions,  shall  exist  in  New  Mexico,  the  watchword  at  the  North  -will  bo 
repeal,  or  the  application  of  the  Wilmot  proviso." 

He  went  still  further,  and  appealed  to  the  cupidity  of  the  North  to  defeat  tho 
compromise.  Pie  held  out  to  them  the  glittering  bait  of  .another  free  State  in 
New  Mexico,  the  inhabitants  of  which  were  about  forming  a  State  constitution 
with  a  prohibition  against  slavery.  He  said  : 

"Admit  New  Mexico  as  a  State,  or  provide  for  its  admission  at  some  future  day  after 
Texas  shall  have  acceded  to  a  settlement  of  her  boundary,  and  though  there  may  be  some 
increased  excitement  at  the  South  for  a  time,  it  will  soon  pass  away,  and  all  will  be  per 
manently  quiet.  *  *  * 

Mr.  FOOTK.  I  state  with  perfect  conscientiousness,  and  with  a  complete  conviction  of 
what  I  say,  that  if  New  Mexico  is  admitted  as  a  State,  tho  Union  cannot  continue  to  exist," 

In  reply  to  Mr.  Foote  and  Mr.  Clay's  declaration  thut  he  would  not  vote  for 
the  admission  of  New  Mexico  as  a  State,  Mr.  Bell  said  : 

*'  It  does  appear  to  me  to  be  a  strange  and  extraordinary  position  for  Senators  to  take,  when 
they  declare  that  under  no  circumstances  will  they  vote  to  admit  New  Mexico  into  the  Union  a#  a 

State.'' 

This  hasty  effort  of  Mr.  Bell  to  drag  another  free  State  into  the  Union,  with  a 
population,  according  to  Mr.  Clay,  of  about  ten  thousand  Americans,  Mexicans, 
and  Spaniards,  and  eighty  or  ninety  thousand  Indians,  a  "  civilized,  uncivilized, 
half-civilized,  ani  barbarous  people,"  must  be  considered  very  strange,  not  to  say 
monstrous,  when  taken  in  connection  with  his  subsequent  conversion  to  Know- 
Nothingism,  and  his  zealous  co-«peration  with  that  party  to  proscribe  and  put 
down  our  f  jreign-born  citizens,  m  the  election  of  1855.  But  this  was  not  all. 
lie  begged  to  remind  th.  northern  Senators  that  there  was  ro  bill  for  the  aboli 
tion  of  slavery  in  the  Di,-  act  of  Columbia,  aud  then  proceeds  to  show  that  there 
is  no  constitutional  impeo.-  :ients  in  the  way.  Hear  him  : 

"  "With  regard  to  the  const'  rational  power  of  Congress  over  this  subject,  I  would  say  th.st 
the  only  doubt  I  have  of  the  existence  of  the  power,  either  to  suppress  the  slave  trade,  or  to 
abolish  slavery  in  this-  District,  is  inspired  by  the  respect  I  have  for  the  opinions  of  so  many 
distinguished  and  eminent  men,  both  in  and  out  of  Congress,  who  hold  that  Congress  has 
no  such  power.  Reading  the  Constitution  for  myself,  /  believe  that  Congress  has  all  (hepotver 
over  the  subject  in  this  District  which  the  States  have  within  their  respective  jurisdictions.  *  * 

"  But,  however  great  my  respect  may  be  for  the  opinions  of  others  on  the  question  of 
power,  there  are  some  considerations  of  such  high  account  as  in  my  judgment,  to  make  it 
desirable  that,  unless  by  common  consent  the  project  of  abolition  &hall  be  wholly  given  up 
and  abandoned,  the  remnant  of  slavery  existing  in  the  District  should  be  abolished  at  once.  At 
the  present  moment,  however,  the  exciting  state  of  public  sentiment  in  the  South,  growing 
out  of  the  territorial  questions,  may. seem  to  forbid  such  a  course."  * 

"  I  would  be  glad  to  see  al'  oau«e  of  disturbance  and  contention  in  the  District  wholly 
removed;  but  let  me  say  th^  f  »;,-•  m-ve:  can  be  done  by  the  abolition  of  slavery,  unless  it 
be  accompanied  by  some  au^ii  •*.«  }<!ov,-i.on  for  the  removal  or  the  effective  control  of  the 
slaves  after  they  shall  be  emat>,  puit-d.  With  this  qualification,  and  in  order  to  test  the 
determination  of  the  North  in  regard  to  any  further  and  continued  aggression  upon 
the  Southern  property,  I  would  BB  CONTENT  TO  SEE  SLAVERY  in  the  District  ABOLISHED  TO 
DAY." 

After  surrendering  everything  to  the  North,  with  his  eye  on  the  future,  Mr. 
Bell  begs  leave  to  call  their  attention  to  his  subserviency  to  their  policy  and 


14 

views,  and  that  now  when  they  are  acquiring  power  and  influence,  they  must  not 
forget  him.     We  quote  his  words  : 

"  I  cannot  forbear  further  to  remind  my  northern  friends  that  in  the  South  and  South 
west  there  is  a  body  of  men,  who,  for  a  long  period,  have  continued  faithful  and  just  to 
them;  sustaining  them  in  their  FAVORITE  POLICY  through  ercry  vicissitude  of  political  for 
tune ;  a  body  of  men  of  liberal  and  catholic  views  of  national  policy,  who  look  beyond  the 
limited  horizon  of  sectional  interests,  spurn  the  influence  of  sectional  prejudice,  and  em 
brace  the  Tvhole  Union  as  liieir  common  country.  * 

"  While  that  protracted  domination  of  the  South  which  has  been  so  long  and  so  keenly 
felt  at  the  North,  wa3  always  more  imaginary  than  real,  no  southern  man  ever  having  at-! 
tained  the  Presidency  except  by  the  concurrence,  oftentimes,  of  more  than  half,  and  always ' 
of  a  large  division  of  the  North  ;  yet  now  it  cannot  be  disguised  that  the  period  of  southern 
ascendency — if  ever  it  had  a  real  existence — approaches  its  end.  Political  power  and  as-.! 
ceudency,  in  a  8«crioi;al  view,  have  already  passed  away  from  the  South  forever,  and  thif* 
is  so  manifest  that  a  Senator  who  spoke  in  this  debate,  could  not  forbear  taunting  the  South! 
with  the  prospect  of  their  declining  fortunes.  A  great  change  had  tak«n  place  in  the  politi 
cal  vocabulary  :  '  It  is  no  longer,'  he  exultingly  exclaims,  « the  South  and  the  North  ;  it  is 
now  the  North  and  the  South.'" 

For  all  those  extracts  see  Appendix  to  Congressional  Globe,  1st  session  31st 
Congress  beginning  at  pages  1088,  and  1667. 

Ilis  efforts  to  defeat  the  compromise  failed,  however.  They  were  passed,  and  we 
find  Mr.  B'-ll  votiug  for  the  only  feature  in  it  obnoxious  to  the  South,  to  wit : 
the  admission  of  California — and  voting  against  the  Territorial  bill  for  New 
Mexico,  and  dodging  the  vote  on  Utah,  which  left  open  those  Territories  for  the 
emigration  of  the  southerners  with  their  peculiar  property  upon  an  equal  footing 
with  the  people  from  any  other  section  of  the  Union,  leaving  the  people  to  deter 
mine  their  domestic  institutions  for  themselves  when  they  shall  come  to  form  a 
State  Government.  We  repeat,  that  Mr.  BELL  voted  consistently  with  the 
fanatics  of  the  North  for  that  feature  of  the  compromise  which  was  the  most  un 
just  to  the  South;  and  with  them  against  that  feature,  pertaining  to  the  Terri 
tories,  that  did  the  greatest  justice,  and  was  most  approved  at  the  South. — (See 
Appendix  to  Congressional  Globe,  volume  21,  part  2d,  pp.  1573  and  1589 — vol 
ume  22,  part  2d,  page  1485.) 

THE  KANSAS-NEBRASKA  ACT. 

This  brings  us  to  1854,  when  governments  were  to  be  provided  for  Kansas  and 
Nebraska.  Early  in  the  proceedings  of  the  Senate,  January,  of  that  year,  Mr. 
Dixon,  a  Whig  Senator  from  Kentucky,  offered  an  amendment  to  the  bill,  repeal 
iog,  by  express  words,  the  Missouri  Compromise  of  1820 — a  compromise  which 
has  alwa)s  been  regarded  as  unjust  to  the  South,  and  which  the  North  had  uni 
formly  shown  an  unwillingness  to  observe,  except  when  it,  operated  to  their  ad 
vantage,  a  compromise  which  Mr.  Bell  had  himself  denounced  in  1850,  as  "  of 
no  value  to  the  South/'  and  as  "a  submission  of  the  South — a  submission  fatal 
to  the  interests  of  the  South."  The  compromise  of  1850  had  virtually  repealed 
the  Missouri  Compromise,  and  in  order  to  make  the  present  legislation  accord 
with  that,  Mr.  Dixon  brought  forward  his  proposition  of  repeal.  The  Legislature 
of  Tennessee  was  in  session  at  the  time,  and  with  but  one  dissenting  voice  in  the 
Senatorial  branch,  and  unanimously  in  the  House,  passed  resolutions  in  favor  of 
the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise.  The  amendment  of  Mr.  Dixon  was 
afterwards  offered  by  Mr.  Douglas  to  the  original  bill,  and  when  it  came  up  in  the 
Senate,  was  voted  for  by  Mr.  BELL,  in  connection  with  all  other  national  men  of 
both  paries.  It  was  the  tirst  time  for  many  years  that,  upon  any  material  ques 
tion  involving  the  rights  of  tho  South,  he  had  failed  to  take  ground  against  the 
South,  and  with  his  old  Federal  allies  at  the  North.  It  was  understood  that  the 
enure  body  of  Whig  Senators  from  the  South  would  support  the  bill  as  thus 
amended.  The  National  Intelligencer,  their  organ  at  "Washington,  was  taking  the 


15 

contrary  course,  and  fearing  that  it  might  create  a  false  impression  with  the  coun 
try  as  to  the  position  of  the  Whig  party  in  the  Senate,  a  caucus  of  the  Whig 
Senators  was  held,  and — 

"Resolved,  That  we  disapprove  of  the  course  of  the  National  Intelligencer  upon  the 
Nebraska  bill,  and  that,  in  our  opinion,  it  does  not  truly  represent  the  Whig  party  of  the 
South." 

The  Hon.  John  Bell  was  one  of  the  members  of  this  caucus  meeting.*  "  That 
resolution/'  says  the  chairman  of  the  meeting,  Mr.  Toombs,  in  a  speech  in  tho 
Senate,  u  was  adopted  without  dispute.  I  did  not  hear  the  Senator's  (Mr.  Bell's) 
voice  against  it."  Just  before  the  meeting  adjourned,  say  Mr.  Toombs,  Mr. 
Clayton,  and  Mr.  Badger,  in  their  speeches  in  the  Senate,  "  it  was  suggested  tla*. 
as  it  would  be  several  weeks  before  all  of  us  would  have  an  opportunity  of  speak 
ing  on  the.  bill,  an  authoritati/e  annunciation  of  our  position  upon  it  in  thp 
Senate  would  promote  the  objects  of  the  meeting,  This  was  agreed  to  without 
dispute,  whereupon  the  Senator  from  North  Carolina  was  requested  to  state,  in 
substance,  that  the  Southern  Whigs  were  a  unit  in  favor  of  the  bill.  The  Sen 
ator  from  North  Carolina,  Mr.  Badger,  having  the  floor  next  day,  made  the 
announcement  accordingly.  The  statement  went  forth  to  the  country.  c<  The 
Senator  from  Tennessee,"  continued  Mr.  Toombs,  "  was  present  when  it  was 
made,  but  he  did  not.  utter  publicly  one  word  in  opposition;  and  I  never  beard 
that  the  statement  of  the  Senator  from  North  Carolina  did  not.  truly  represent 
the  position  of  the  Senator  from  Tennessee,  until  I  heard  of  hia  vote  against  tho 
bill  when  it  passed  that  body." 

Senator  Clayton,  one  of  the  purest  men  who  ever  occupied  a  seat  in  the  Senate, 
said  : 

"The  Southern  Whigs  (in  that  meeting)  were  unanimous  in  favor  of  the  repeal  of  the 
Missouri  Compromise.  They  had  consulted  with  each  other,  not  in  a  caucus,  but  we  un 
derstood  from  private  conversation  with  each  other  that  we  all  thought  the  Mis&ouri  Com 
promise  line  ought  to  be  repealed." 

Mr.  Clayton  further  said,  he  understood  Mr.  Bell  himself  to  take  that  ground 
in  his  speech.  Mr.  Badger  said,  in  the  Senate : 

"I  certainly  thought  1  was  requested  by  the  meeting  of  Whig  Senators,  then  and  there 
present,  of  whom  my  friend  from  Tennessee  was  one — not  only  authorized,  but  requested— 
in  order  to  anticipate  the  delay  which  must  take  place  before  they  could  either  vote  or 
Bposik  on  the  subject,  that  whatever  course  of  reasoning  we  might  adopt  in  bringing  us  to 
the  conclusion,  in  support  of  the  bill,  we  were  all  united." 

Every  other  gentleman  who  spoke  confirmed  these  gentlemen  in  their  state 
ments.  (Seo  Appendix  to  Globe,  vol.  29,  pp.  940-41.) 

And  yet  ai *er  having  voted  for  the  main  feature  of  this  measure,  the  repeal  of 
the  Missouri  Compromise,  offered  as  aa  amendment  by  Mr.  Dixon — after  having  at 
tended  a  meeting  of  the  Whig  members  of  the  Senate,  who  were  all  agreed  to  favor 
the  bill,  and  who,  from  their  intercourse  with  Mr.  Bell  understood  him  as  being 
with  them,  aiK'  who  authorized  one  of  their  number,  Mr.  Badger,  to  announce 
in  the  Senate,  that-  they  were  a  unit,  for  the  Nebraska- Kansas  bill, — Mr.  Bell, 
tn.ie  to  his  instincts,  abandoned  the  South,  and  even  his  party  friends,  on  this 
question  ;  arid  recorded  iiis  vote  with  the  Abolitionists  against  it.  The  following 
is  the  negative  vote  : 

^AYS. — Messrs.  BELL  of  Tenn.,  CHASE  of  Ohio,  DODGE  of  Wisconsin,  FESSENDEN  of 
Maine,  FISII  of  New  York,  FOOT  of  Vermont,  HAMLIN  of  Maine,  Houston  of  Texas, 
JAMES  of  Khode  Island.  SEWARD  of  New  York,  SMITH  of  Connecticut,  SUMNER  of 
Massachusetts,  WADE  of  Ohio,  WALKER  of  Wisconsin. — 14.  Ayes  37. 

What  new  light  broke  in  upon  him  between  his  vote  for  Mr.  Dixon's  amend 
ment,  in  accordance  with  the  instructions  of  his  Stats,  and  his  vote  against  the 


IB 

bill  ?  What  inducements  were  hold  out  to  him  by  the  Abolitionists  which  in 
clined  him  to  violate  his  instructions,  stultify  his  own  record,  and  return  to  their 
embraces?  We  will  see.  When,  in  1856,  meeting  with  the  general  disapproba 
tion  of  his  outraged  constituency,  it  was  rumored  that  he  intended  to  resign  and 
come  home,  the  leading  Black  Republican  organ  of  the  North,  the  New  York 
Tribune,  contradicting  the  report,  said  : 

"  He  KB  as  robust  and  hale  to-day  as  when  he  bearded  and  conquered  the  old  lion,  ANDREW 
JACKSON,  in  his  den,  and  as  resolute  and  as  ready  to  do  service  as  when  SINGLE  HANDED  Ac 
bravely  eneounted  the  WHOLE  SOUTH  upon  the  Nebraska  Bill,  and  CARRIED  TERROR  INTO  THEIU 
RANKS.  The  wisdom  and  experience  of  a  man  so  eminent  and  pure  are  of  no  ordinary  value 
at  this  time,  when  the  country  is  convulsed  with  the  wars  of  faction  and  the  spirit  of  sub 
jugation  is  abroad,  threatening  to  overshadow  a  new  land  of  promise,  (Kansas.)  Let  us 
hope  they  will  be  long  exercised  in  the  Senate  or  in  some  higher  capacity,  where  the  coun 
try  may  equally  enjoy  their  advantage." 

But  we  must  hurry  on.     And  this  brings  us  to  the — 

ADMISSION  OF  KANSAS  AS  A  SLAVE  STATE. 

Iii  1857  Kansas  applied  for  admission  as  a  slave  State.  Her  constitution  was 
formed  by  a  convention  legally  convened,  and  the  question  of  slavery  or  no  sla 
very  was  submitted  to  a  vote  of  the  people,  and  they  decided  in  favor  of  slavery. 
Gen.  Zollicoffer,  the  Whig  Representative  in  Congress  from  Mr.  Bell's  own  dis 
trict  in  Tennessee,  truly  said  : 

'•  The  great  mass  of  those  who  oppose  the  admission  of  Kansas  into  the  Union,  oppose  it 
because  it  comes  with  a  pro-slavery  constitution." 

The  issue  was  made  up.  The  time  was  come  to  test  the  question  whether  the 
Black  Republican  doctrine,  "No  more  slave  States/'  should  prevail.  Tennessee, 
true  to  herself  and  the  South,  through  her  legislature,  instructed  Mr.  Bell  to 
vote  tor  the  admission  of  Kansas  or  resign.  What  did  he  do  ?  He  gets  up  in 
the  Senate,  and  insults  the  people  of  Tennessee  by  saying : 

"1  undertake  to  say,  that  at  this  day  (1858)  there  are  not  hve  hundred  men  in  Ten 
nessee  who  understand  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill.  *  *  In  my  own  intercourse  "With,  the 
people,  1  have  yet  to  find  the  first  man  who  understood  that  question  properly." 

And  then,  to  still  further  mark  his  contempt  for  the  people,  he  voted  with 
Hale,  Seward,  Sunmer  &  Co.,  against  the  bill.  He  and  Mr.  Crittenden,  of  Ken 
tucky,  were  the  only  Senators  from  the  slave  States  in  the  Senate  that,  on  that  occa 
sion,  had  the  hardihood  to  desert  their  own  section,  and  attach  themselves  to  the 
Abolitionists  of  the  North,  and  they  have  both  been  hurled  by  an  indignant  and 
betrayed  constituency  from  their  seats  in  that  august  body. 

In  his  speeches  upon  the  question,  Mr.  Bell  objected  to  some  informalities  and 
charges  of  fraud  which  had  been  thrown  out  by  the  Abolition  Senators  against 
the  action  of  Kansas.  He  forgot  that  he  had  voted  to  admit  California,  with  all 
her  informalities,  irregularities,  and  frauds.  She  had  not  had  even  a  territorial 
government  before.  The  convention  that  made  her  constitution  was  called  to 
gether  by  a  military  Governor;  the  question  of  convening  it  was  not  even  sub 
mitted  to  a  vote  of  the  people.  There  was  no  law  directing  who  should  or  should 
not  vote.  All  was  chaos.  The  military  Governor  was  the  supreme  authority, 
and  evidences  cf  astounding  frauds  were  filed  before  Congress,  undenied  and 
undeniable.  Mr.  Bell  himself  admitted  that  the  rights  of  the  United  States  to 
the  mineral  lands  were  not  guarded  in  her  constitution.  Yet  he  voted  and 
spoke  for  her  admission — she  was  a  free  State — he  could  then  overlook  the  in 
formalities,  irregularities,  and  frauds.  He  went  further.  He  was  willing  to 
admifc  New  Mexico,  with  her  uncivilized  and  semi-barbarous  people,  as  a  free 
State.  But  as  soon  as  a  slave  State  comes  up  for  admission,  and  Giddings,  Hale, 


17 

Seward,  Sunnier  &  Co.  start  off,  in  accordance  with  their  Abolition  anti-slavery 
views,  in  full  howl  against  it,  Mr.  Bell,  tender,  conscientious  soul,  sees  informal 
ities  in  every  act,  irregularity  at  every  turn,  and  fraud  at  every  corner.  The 
"  powerful  North," — that  NOT th  with  whom  Mr.  Bell  had  so  long  co-operated; 
that  North  which  he  had  sustained  in  its  favorite  policy  through  every  vicissi 
tude  of  political  fortune  ;  that  North  with  whom  he  had  formed  a  sacred  alliance 
at  Hartford  and  at  "Boston,  when  be  betrayed  the  Democratic  party  in  18o6; 
that  North  with  whom  he  had  co-operateci  in  reviving  ail  the  Federal  measures 
of  John  Quiucy  Adams'  administration;  that  North  with  whom  he  had  labored 
for  a  United  States  Bank  and  a  high  Protective  Tariff;  that,  North,  vritL  whouj 
he  had  combined  to  defeat  the  acquisition  of  Southern  territory  in  the  adm: -MUM 
of  Texas  ;  that  North,  with  whom  he  had  joined  hands  in  denouncing  the  Mexi 
can  war  and  in  impeding  its  vigorous  prosecution  ;  that  North,  with  whir.  ;"? 
jad  voted,  almost  uniformly,  against  his  own  section  upon  every  question  ;:>.  .;\- 
ing  the  rights  of  slavery ;  that  North,  whom  he  had  aided  in  opening  tb<.  tours 
of  Congress  for  the  reception  of  Abolition  petitions,  in  applying  the  Wi  t;.ui  pro 
viso  to  the  Territory  of  Oregon,  and  in  making  it  a  precedent  against  iu\s  South 
in  future  legislation;  in  defeating  the  CLAYTON  compromise,  which  secured  to  ibe 
slave  States  whatever  constitutional  rights  the  Supreme  Court  should  determine 
them  entitled  to  ;  in  endeavoring  to  defeat  the  compromise  measures  of  1850, 
and  adopt  in  their  stead  a  plan  of  settlement  which  would  have  debarred  the 
South  from  every  inch  of  the  newly  acquired  territory  ;  that  North,  with  whom 
he  stood  shoulder  to  shoulder  in  their  efforts  to  defeat  the  Kansas  bill,  and  sub- 
teQuently  in  prohibiting  her  admission  into  the  Union  under  a  slavery  constitu 
tion  ;  that  North  was  now  getting  the  ascendency  by  numerical  force,  not  by  any 
newly  acquired  constitutional  rights,  and  Mr.  Bell  could  not  afford  to  brea,k  \vitA 
them.  On  the  contrary,  he  desired  to  remind  them,  as  he  saw  the  scale  turning, 
that  in  their  future  triumphs  they  must  not  forget  those  in  the  South  and  South- 
west,  "  ichofor  a  long  period  have  continued  faithful  and  just  to  them,  sustain 
ing  them  in  their  favorite  policy  through  every  vicissitude  of  political  fortune.*"1 
He  pointed  back  to  his  votes  for  the  reception  of  Abolition  petitions  :  iind  his 
declaration  in  favor  of  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  and 
then  adds  : 

"  /  hold  the  same  sentiments  now.     I  do  not  find  the  least  occasion  to  change  them.'" 

Pie  also  goes  on  to  endorse  the  heretical  doctrines  of  the  Abolitionists   on   the 

DEED  SCOTT  DECISION, 

that  it  was  not  binding  or  obligatory  upon  them.  The  Supreme  Court  had  de 
cided,  in  the  Dred  Scott  case,  with  remarkable  unanimity  :  1st,  that  a  negro  was 
not  a  citizen  ;  2d,  that  the  Missouri  Compromise  was  unconstitutional,  and  that 
Congress  had  no  power  to  prohibit  .slavery  in  the  Territories;  and  3d,  that  slaves 
were  property,  and  that  the  citizens  of  all  the  States  had  a  right  to  go  into  the 
Territories  with  their  property — the  right  to  which  could  not  be  impaired  by  either 
Congress,  or  the  Territorial  Legislatures,  they  possessing  alone  "the  power  coupled 
with  the  duty  to  protect  it." 

Mr.  Seward,  Mr.  Hale,  and  all  the  other  Abolition  agitators  denounced  the  de 
cision  in  the  .most  unmeasured  terms.     They  threatened  to  re-organize  the  court, 
nd  proclaimed  that  they  would  not  obey  the  decision.     Mr.  Douglas,  who  had 
been  fighting  side  by  side  with  them,  told  the  people  of  Illinois  : 

"  It  matters  not  what  way  the  Supreme  Court  may  hereafter  decide  as  to  the  abstract  question, 
•whether  slavery  may  or  may  not  go  into  a  Territory  under  the  Constitution,  the  people  have  the 
lawful  means  to  introduce  or  exclude  it  as  they  please.  -••  *  * 

'•JVb  matter  what  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  may  ')<•  on  that  attract  question,  still  the 


18 

right  of  the  people  to  make  a  slave  Territory  or  a  free  Territory,  is  perfect  and  complete  under 
the  Nebraska  Hill." 

Abraham  Lincoln,  the  Black  Republican  candidate  for  the  Presidency,  on  the 
same  occasion  said  : 

•'  If  I  were  in  Congress,  and  a  vote  should  come  up  on  a  question,  whether  slavery  should 
be  prohibited  in  a  new  Territory,  in  spite  of  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  I  would  vote  4,ha-t  it 
should." 

Now,  listen  to  John  Bell,  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States : 

"  Whatever  may  be  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  on  the  power  of  Congress  to  in 
terfere  with  the  question  of  slavery  in  the  Territories,  and  however  clear  and  well  founded 
in  principle  and  authority  its  decisions  may  be,  I  have  supposed  that  inasmuch  as  it  is  a  ; 
question  of  constitutional  construction  or  interpretation,  and  relates  to  thj  jurisdiction  " 
and  power  of  a  special  department  of  the  government — a  department  always  more  or  less 
under  the  influence  of  political  considerations,  THK  QUESTION  WOULD  NOT  BB  REGARDED  AS 
PERMANENTLY  SETTLED  ;  and  that  whenever  in  future,  as  heretofore,  Congress  shall  be 
called  upon  to  legislate  concerning  a  Territory,  the  question  will  again  become  the  subject  oj 
decision,  and  such  decision  as  the  majority  shall  think  proper  to  declare.  Congress  was  never 
swayed  by  the  opinion  of  the  Supreme  Court  on  the  question  of  its  powers  to  establish  a 
National  Bank  ;  nor  will  it  be  controlled  by  any  of  its  opinions  on  questions  involving  political 
considerations" 

Now,  what  is  the  difference  be-tween  Bell,  Douglas,  and  Lincoln  ?  All  of  them 
agree  in  setting  at  defiance  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court,  declared  by  the 
Cons.-itiuiun  of  the  United  States  to  be  "  the  supreme  law  of  the  land ;"  they 
proclaim  the  same  dangerous  and  infamous  doctrine,  that  Congress,  and  if  Con 
gress,  then  ihe  citizen  also,  will  not  be  bound  by  the  decision  of  the  highest  tribu 
nal  known  to  the  Constitution  to  interpret  the  laws  of  the  country.  If  this  is 
not  counselling  a  contempt  of  the  courts,  and  resistance,  instead  of  obedience,  to 
the  constituted  authorities  of  the  Government,  we  cannot  understand  the  force  of 
the  English  language.  Such  a  doctrine,  of  contempt  for  the  laws  and  the  courts 
would,  u  instiled  into  the  minds  of  the  people,  inevitably  lead  to  the  disruption 
of  the  Government.  He  is  not  a  scund  statesman,  nor  a  good  man,  nor  a  patriot, 
who  loves  his  country  and  her  institutions,  who  would  thus  seek  to  loosen  the 
respect  of  the  people  for  the  judiciary  and  laws  of  their  country. 

THE  PRAISE  OF  THE  ABOLITIONISTS. 

No  wonder,  then,  the  Abolitionists  were  loud  ia  their  praises  of  Mr.  Bell. 
During  a  loag  and  eventful  history,  he  had  never  forsaken  them.  He  had  given 
himself  wholly  up  to  their  "  favorite  policy/'  He  had  voted  to  receive,  print, 
and  refer  their  abolition  petitions;  he  had  voted  agtanst  the  Clayton  compromise, 
and  i-poke  in  favor  of  the  Wilmot  Proviso ;  he  was  willing  to  vote  to  admit  free 
States,  and"*had  voted  against  the  admission  of  a  slave  State;  he  had  spoken 
against  the  Compromise  measures,  and  voted  against  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill ; 
he  had  proclaimed  the  power  of  Congress,  and  his  own  desire,  to  abolish  slavery  in 
the  District  of  Columbia;  and  now  he  had  joined  the  Abolitionists  to  weaken 
the  force  of  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court.  In  view  of  all  this,  well  might 
Mr.  Seward,  that  arch-traitor  of  New  York,  alluding  to  Mr.  Bell,  say : 

*'Al  last  a  new  voice  issues  from  your  own  region,  FROM  THE  SOUTH,  from  the  slave  States, 
and  protests  against  your  further  persistence,  in  this  mad  enterprise,  [of  extending  slavery,]  and  | 
admonishes  you  /hat  it  must  and  will  fail.     The  cohorts  are  gathering  FROM   THE  SOUTH;  the  \ 
men  of  moderation  and  conservatism,  who,  as  they  have  HERETOFORE  MODERATED  IN  FAVOR  OF 
SL/VVKT^Y  AND  AGAINST  FREEDOM,  will  noiv  be  obliged,  in  consistency  with  their  just  and  well 
established  ch-.iracf.er  and  their  patriotism,  TO  MODERATE  AGAINST  YOU  IN  FAVOR  OF  FREEDOM, 
AND  [USE  UP  UNANIMOUSLY  AGAINST  SLAVERY." 

Well  might  the  notorious  Burlingame — he  who  blasphemously  declared  that 
"the  times  demand,  and  we  mus^  have,  an  anti-slavery  Constitution,  an  anti- 
slavery  Bible,  and  an  ami-slavery  God,"  thus  bespatter  Mr.  Bell  with  praises : 


19 

"  Sir,  it  was  a  proud  day  to  me  when  I  heard  the  speech  of  the  venerable  Senator  from 
Kentucky,  (Mr.  Crittenden.)  The  molody  of  his  voice  and  his  patriotic  accent  still  eound 
in  my  ears.  I  was  glad  to  hear  him  denounce  fraud  ;  I  was  gLul  to  hear  him  stand  for  the 
truth.  *  *  I  also  felt  proud  to  hear  the  speech  of  the  distinguishe'd  Senator  from  Ten 
nessee,  (Mr.  Bell.)  *  *  I  trust  that  this  may  be  an  ompn  of  what  may  happen  in  the 
future:  As  to  what  may  happen,  it  is  not  for  me  to  prophesy.  Let  time  and  chance 
determine." 

Horace  Greeley,  of  the  New  York  Tribune,  w.is  also  loud  in  his  praises  of  Mr. 
Bell.  Hear  him  : 

"  Most  certainly  we  should  prefer  an  original  Republican — Gov.  Seward  or  Gov.  Chase 
for  instance — but  we  shall  heartily  and  zealously  support  oue  like  JOHN  BELL,  Edward 
B  ites,  or  John  M.  Botts,  provided  we  are  well  assured  that  his  influence,  his  patronage, 
his  power,  if  chosen  President,  will  be  used  not  to  extend  slavery,  but  to  confine  it  within 
the  States  that  see  fit  to  uphold  it." 

And  again,  in  reference  to  who  should  be  their  candidate  : 

"A  speech,  a  vote,  a  proposition  of  the  right  stamp,  and  made  at  the  right  moment,  may 
indicate  him  so  that  the  clear-eyed  can  no  longer  doubt.  And  that  man,  whoever  he  may 
be,  whether  Seward,  or  Chase,  or  McLean,  or  Banks,  ur  Fremont,  or  Bissell,  or  Collarner, 
or  Bates,  or  Fessenden — nay,  should  he  not  have  hitherto  been  regarded  as  technically  a 
Republican,  such  as  Gen.  Soott,  or  JOHN  BELL,  or  Horace  F.  Clark,  or  John  M.  Botts,  or 
Henry  Winter  Davis,  provided  he  be  openly  and  unequivocally  anti-slavery-extending,  anti- 
Cuba-stealing,  anti-Fillibuster — we  shall  heartily  support  both -his  nomination  and  his 
election.  We  give  fair  notice  that  a  practical  triumph  over  the  sham  Democracy  and  its 
master,  the  slavery  Propaganda,  is  the  end  for  which  we  labor  and  to  which  we  hold  not 
only  personal  aspirations  but  party  names  wholly  subordinate." 

Again,  in  a  long  article  on  the  policy  of  taking  up  a  Southern  man,  after  laying 
down  the  platform  of  the  Black  Republican  party,  Greeley  said : 

"Looking  to  the  North,  we  regard  as  coming  within  the  scope  of  the  organization  Ave 
have  indicated,  all  such  Democrats  as  John  Reynolds,  Horace  F.  Clark,  Garnett  B.  Adrain, 
John  W.  Forney,  and  John  Hickman ;  and  all  such  Americans  as  Nathaniel  S.  Bcnton, 
Daniel  Ullman,  James  H.  Campbell,  Henry  M.  Fuller,  and  William  Millward.  AT  THE 
SOUTH,  UNLESS  WE  MISUNDERSTAND  THEIR  POSITION,  IT  WOULD  EMBRACE  SUCH  MEN  AS  JOHN 
TiELL,  EDWARD  BATES,  H.  WINTER  DAVIS,  JOHN  M.  BOTTS,  EMERSON  ETHERIDGE, 
AND  KENNETH  RAYNER. 

"  Cannot  they  combine  to  overthrow  the  Nullifiers  and  Propagandists  of  the  Calhoun 
school  in  their  efforts  to  override  the  Constitution  and  make  Negro  Slavery  the  dominating 
interest  of  the  country?  ARE  NOT  THESE  THE  ISSUES  UPON  WHICH  THE  PRES 
IDENTIAL  CONTEST  IS  TO  TURN?  l»o  japtvWilliam  II.  Seward  and  JOHN  BELL, 
Salmon  P.  Chase  and  Edward  Bates,  Scluiyler  Coifax  and  John  Hickman,  Henry  M.  Fuller, 
and  Horace  F.  Clark,  HOLD  PRECISELY  THE  SAME  SENTIMENTS  IN  RELATION 
TO  THESE?  And  shall  these  gentlemen,  and  those  who  think  with  them,  unite  and  give 
EFFICIENCY  TO  THEIR  COMMON  OPINION  in  the  next  National  Administration,  or 
by  warring  on  each  other,  insure  a  triumph  to  their  common  joe?'" 

The  New  York  Times,  the  organ  of  Senator  Seward,  discussing  the  probabili 
ties  as  to  the  Chicago  nominee,  said  : 

"  The  candidates  prominent  before  the  Opposition,  are  Senator  Cameron,  SENATOR  SEW 
ARD,  William  L.  Dayton,  SENATOR  BELL,  Senator  Critteaden,  Governor  Banks,  ABRA 
HAM  LINCOLN,  JOHN  C.  FREMONT." 

And  in  continuation  of  all  this,  the  Times  proceeded  to  detail  a  conversation 
between  several  "prominent  Republicans,"  who  aoui^d  : 

"That,  notwithstanding  they  were  personally  in  favor  of  Seward,  yet  that  it  would  be 
more  politic  to  nominate  a  Southerner,  so  that  it  might  not  be  said  it  was  a  sectional  strug 
gle  for  power.  It  was  further  uryed  that  BELL,  of  Tennessee,  was  the  most  available  candidate 
for  them" 

Even  the  National  Era,  the  ultra  Abolition  paper,  published  at  Washington 
City,  was  willing  to  take  Mr.  Bell,  but  did  nat  like  the  abuse  of  the  Republicans 
by  the  Nashville  Banner,  which  was  kept  up  to  throw  dust  in  ihe  eyes  of  the 
people  of  Tennessee.  The  Era  said  : 


20 

"The  Nashvi'l"  Itciniblicun  Banner .  the  orgun  of  Jet  IN  BKLL,  is  spoiling  nil  the  fine  pros 
pects  of  that  gentleman  for  the  Presidency  by  its  coarse  abuse  of  the  ;  Black  Repuplicaris.' 
While  Mr.  Bell  if  hob-nobbing  with  the  Republicans  and  semi- Republican?  of  Pennsylvania  and 
New  York,  his  organ  id  denouncing  -Black  Republicans'  as  being  uo  better  than  the  Black 
Democracy,  and  the  great  original  sin  of  each  of  these  parties,  according  to  the  Republican 
Banner,  is  the  fact  that  they  trace  their  origin  to  THOMAS  JEFFERSON,  Who  is  denounced  as 
an  accomplished  and  ineffable  demagogue." 

So  intense  wa&  the  love  of  the  Abolitionists  for  Mr.  Bell,  tha-  we  see  them, 
with  Horace  Grtcley  ar,  their  head,  tendering. him  .the  co.-t  plitnent  of  a  public 
ciinu'-T. 

\\V  submit  the  question*  to  the  heart  and  conscience  of  ever}1  Southern  man: 
It>  thib  man,  whose  life  and  course  have  been  *o  opposed  to  Southern  interests  and 
Southern  rights,  as  ro  receive  the  plaudits  and  approval  of  sueb  Abolition  leaders 
as  Sewurd,  Bnrlmgame,  Greeley,  Raymond  £  Co., a  safe  man  f<»r  the  Presidential 
chair?  Would  you  be  willing  to  trust  }our  rights  and  interests  in  his  keeping 
for  four  years?  Does  he  deserve  the  support  of  the  South,  and  can  a  troe-hearred 
Southerner  give  hi1-  vote  to  one  who  has  been  so  regardless  o>  Southern  rights?  if 
it  had  not  been  for  the  German  element  in  the  Republican  party  demanding  rha* 
no  one  who  had  justified  Know-Nothingism  should  be  nominated  -^  Chicago, 
John  Bell  wouiu  have  been  to-day  their  nominee  instead  of  Abraham  Lincoln 

JOHN  BELL'S  ABUSE  OF  HENRY  CLAY. 

John  Bell,  at  one  time,  was  a  most  ardent  supporter  of  General  Jackson.  Bur, 
he  was  not  content  with  supporting  Jackson  ;  so  ho*,  was  hia  zeal,  that  he  must 
needs  attack  ah  those  who  opposed  his  favorite,  Mr.  Adau*s  had  been  elevated 
to  ihe  Presidency  ra  1824,  through  Congress,  ov^r  General  Jackson,  and  the  cry 
had  gone  forth  that  this  act  had  been  consummated  through  n.  a  corrupt  bargain 
aiid  intrigue"  between  Mr.  Adams  and  Mr.  Cay  Mr.  Bcil  maoe  haste  to  ie- 
iteratc  the  charge  of  '•  bargain  and  intrigue'"'  against  Mr  Clay  On  the  lli'u  >-t 
October,  1826,  he  addressed  a  letter  to  his  constituents,  from  whk-h  we  qu  te  : 

"Appealing,  then,  to  those  who  know  mo  best,  for  the  proofs  of  my  consistency  upon 
the  subject  of  the  formation  and  character  of  the  present  Administration  of  the  General 
Government,  these  are  my  views,  and  these  the  reasons  upon  which  they  are  founded: 
]Vhe.n  ihe  late  election  for  Chief  Magistrate  devolved  on  the  lionise  of  Representative's  in  Con 
gress,  the  choice  of  the  people,  the  favorite  of  the  nation,  was  indicated  through  a  thousand  chan- 
rels  and  by  the  most  infallible  signs :  in  the  elevation,  therefore,  of  the  present  incumbent  over 
him,  1  consider  that  the  first  and  best  principle  of  that  Constitution  was  violated  and  trodden 
underfoot.  The  sovereignty  of  the  people  was  denied.  The  noble  fabric  of  American  liberty  wnn 
•  ndanyered  by  the  example,  and  the  authors  of  it  owe  an  atonement.  The  national  safety  •Jc- 
inandis  that  the  atonement  should  be  their  f alt  from  power.  Ij  I  here  had  been  no  violation  of  mi 
important  principle  in  the  late-  election,  I  should  have  been  opposed  to  an  administration  which 
owes  its  existence  to  a  union  of  discordant  and  hostile  interests,  brought  about  by  the  ARTS  OF 
POLITICAL  MANAGEMENT  AND  INTRIGUE.  These  are  arts  Jit  only  to  be.  employed  hy 
the  minions  and  ministers  of  princes,  whose  thrones  arc  supported  by  the  prostitution  of  pnbiic, 
morals.  When  those  arts  reach  their  maturity  in  this  country,  the  Republic  perishes.  The 
American  masters,  the  people,  who  will  decide  for  themselves  in  the  next  /'residential  elect  ion.  intt 
reject  the.  services  of  those  who  win  thdr  war/  to  ojfir.c  by  PRACTICES  THAT  TEND  TO  COR 
RUPTION,  and  threaten  destruction  to  the.  Government. 

"  When  Fuch  an  administration  is  to  be  opposed,  it  is  fortunate  that  there  exists  such  a 
man  as  Andrew  Jackson,  to  be  the  instrument,  in  the  hands  of  the  people,  of  its  overthrow. 
A  man  whose  purposes  are  admitted  to  be  always  pure  ;  whose  mind  seems  lormed  for 
great  emergencies,  and  whose  splendid  services  place  him.  in  deserving  public  favor,  at  mi 
immeasurable  distance  in  advance  of  all  others.  To  aid  in  placing  such  a  man,  from  any 
part  of  the  Union,  at  the  head  of  affairs,  particularly  fo  aid  in  elevating  such  a  man  from 
my  native  State,  is  not  only  in  accordance  with  my  private  inclinations,  but  would  be  felt 
tu  i/i;  a  part  of  my  public  duty." 

But  this  is  not  all.  At  a  dinner  given  to  Gen.  Jnckson,  at  Vauxhall  Gardens, 
in  XashvilK  on  ihc  4'h  of  July,  3"827,  Mr.  Bel!  proposed  a  mast,  in  which  he 
designated  Henry  n.\\  as  ••  ?h-.  guil'y  t-taifsnian  "  The  following  is  the  toast: 


•21 

"  THE  JNDIGSANT  .Mi.'ioirti*  '.vujo!;    VX.NU;  sc:-  A  nvrcit;;   !,t*ri:cr   r  •  rniANOK  or   A 
BUT  INSULTED  pKOi'J.ii's  WILL — Monu  T*:  ;;u ;  m.r.  ro  rm;  >nni';'  •</a<t'y;n-'K  THAN  TKK   BATTLK'S 
DIN  ou  THE  TEMPEST'S  UAGK." 

But  he  was  not  yet  dene  with  Mr.  Clay.  On  the  7th  of  September,  1827.  ho 
prepared  another  letter  ibr  the  y..  .)iic,  in  which,  alluding  to  Mr.  Adams'  elec'!,"-ra 
to  the  Presidency,  and  the  appo.'atment •  oT  Mr.  Clay  as  Secretary  of  State,  he 
said  : 

"  /  liavf.  seen  the.  Iiiylivi  a-ndmn.it  r m.?. ->rlar..t  office  in,  (lie.  Government  filled  bif  mea?is  find  iir,dr.r 
circumstances  affording  ALL  TUB  i:vmiir  ;;r.s  or  A  COAMTIO.V  FOIIMKD  UPON  THR  BASIS  o1  y.r- 
TUAL  BENEFITS  to  L>e  received  and  conferred,  independently  of  any  controverted  pnint  in  >/.  <•  </,?- 
tails,  t lint  the  Government  can  never  expect  Ike  liyhi  of,  in  any  combination  that  has  hew.  <ir  m< ,./ 
be  enter  id  into,  to  defeat  the  wiU  of  the  people.  Ambitious  ami  fispiriny  politicians  >rha  ,'/.•,• 
great  characters  t<>  s-usiain,  and  sense  enough  to  guard against  the  common  blunders  offaii  PH. NO 
TICED  ADEPTS  IN  Till;  A1ITS  OV  INTRIGUE  AND  MANAGEMENT  IN  FORMING  COALITIONS.  «'J  /  hul 

seldom  expose  themselves  to  l!ie  danger  of  deifciion  from  positive  proof.  It  is  not.  thc-rr /'"/r,  .// 
my  vien\  of  so  much  importance  to  consider  ich  ether  a  possibility  of  innocence  can  be  c/ '/.•;;.,/<•</ 
in  favor  of  the  parties*  implicated,  as' to  determine-  ivhether  ike  PR  "SUMPTION  TO  TUK  CONTT.  •  I;Y 
in  not  so  great  in  the  present,  instance  that  their  continuance  would  be  incompatible  with  t/i*  wf-.-t'ii 
and  well-being  of  our  political  institutions.'' 

" Geucr.il  Jackson  had  beon  presented  &  <  andulate  for  tbo  first  office  in  the  gil'r.  01  tl'.' 
people — I  may  say,  for  the  highest  office  in  li^nor  and  ditinity  in  th«  world,  f  r  tb«^  i  ••.!'. -><ni 
that  it  is  t.bc  gift  of  a  nation  of  freemen.  Tin'  ejectors  of  r'ne  people,  nctinjr  in  refercr.-co  ?o 
their  wishc?,  iiad  pointed  to  him  as  the  uhjoet  of  their  preference.  Thvir  opinion"  h:'-! 
been  fiiirly  e.x pressed — fully  indicated;  yet  when  the  quest  on  \va-;  fully  brought  t.'  ine 
CGCvideration  of  Congresf.  (he  preference  thus  manifested  u>as  disregarded  and  a  selection  i.nro'f 
contrary  to  {he  Irishes  of  those  who  had  a  right  to  direct  and  govern;  of  this  the  freemen  </;/  //.<! 
United  States  had  a  right  to  explain,  and  they  did  complain  ;  nor  'will  they,  I  iru&l,  cruxc  ;» 
do  so  until  f  hey  shall  hc;vt>  vindicated  those  rights  u~hich  v:<'re  thus  outraged  and  vms  fed  from 
them." 

Yet,  after  these  denunciations  of  Mr.  Clay,  and  the  most  fulsome  eulogies  of 
General  Jackson,  which  we  have  not  the  space  to  quote,  he  became.  t<>  suit  his 
purposes,  the  most  ardent  admirer  and  eulogist  of  the  man  he  had  so  grossly 
abused,  and  the  most  bitter  reviier  and  defamcr  of  the  other  he  had  formerly  be 
spattered  with  praise.  It  was  not  in  his  nature  to  continue  long  as  the  friend 
of  any  man,  and  accordingly,  after  eulogizing  Mr.  Clay  for  a  number  of  years,  he 
deserted  him  for  (Jenerai  Taylor,  because  ho  thought  Mr.  Clay's  star  was  in  its 
wane,  as  he  had  done  with  General  Jackson.  Be  came  out  in  favor  of  General 
Taylor's  nomination,  over  Mr.  Clay,  for  the  Presidency  in  184H,  and  ;is  there 
were  then  Whigs  in  Tennessee  wedded  to  Mr.  Clay,  be  made  a  speech  at  Mur- 
freesborough,  in  that  State,  which  was  published  in  his  organ,  the  Nashville  Ban 
ner,  to  convince  them  that  they  ought  to  give  up  Clay  and  take  Taylor.  Yv'e> 
have  room  only  for  a  short  extract : 

"  He  believed  that  hostility  to  Mr.  Clay  had  become  a  fixed  sentiment  with  many.  His 
idrniration  of  Mr.  Clay's  talents  t7as  not  less  than  that  of  those  who  thought  his  claims 
should  have  been  preferred.  He  had  prejudices  in  regard  to  him  to  overcome  like  many 
ithers,  but  many  others  had  not  yet  overcome  them.  He  was  for  Taylor  because  he 
.bought  the  honest  and  patriotic  of  all  parties  could  unite  upon  him.  He  had  heard  of 
Borne  Whigs  who  had  rather  sink  with  Clay  than  swim  with  Taylor.  That  was  not  his  view 
of  the  du,ty  of  a  patriotic  Whig.  In  giving  up  Mr.  Clay  he  knew  that  all  did  not  agree 
with  him.  A  movement  had  been  made  in  New  York  lately,  by  Whigs,  who  still  thought 
Mr.  Clay  the  only  proper  representative  of  Whig  principles.  He  did  not  think  the  Whig 
party  so  poor  that  they  could  boast  but  one  man  who  deserved  their  support." 

Again,  in  1850,  after  his  extraordinary  effort  to  defeat  the  Compromise  meas 
ures,  Mr.  Clay  thought  proper,  among  the  opponents  of  the  adjustment,  to  class 
Mr.  Bell  with  the  Northern  Abolitionists,  and  to  say  that  all  they  wanted  was 
the  Wilmot  Proviso  incorporated  in  it.  Whereupon  Mr.  Bell  thus  replied  : 

"  I  am  aware  of  the  vast  control  the  honorable  Senator  has  over  the  will  and  sentiments 
of  men.  especially  in  the  Whig  ranks;  and  this  he  has  had  for  years.  But,  when  the  hon- 


22 

orable  Senator  so  indignantly  denounces  military  authority,  is  rrE  UNCONSCIOUS  THAT  HE 
is  HIMSELF  A  GREAT  MORAL  DESPOT?  t  knew  something  of  these  moral  despotisms. 
I  have  had  to  encounter  them  in  my  time." 

Is  there  a  man  in  the  T'nkod  States,  who  reveres  the  memory  of  Henry  Clay, 
can  give  his  vote  for  his  most  bitter  reviler — John  Boll  ?  What  say  you,  Whigs 
of  Kentucky  the  legitimate  custodians  of  the  fame  and  honor  of  your  great 
leader?  You  who  clung  to  him  in  every  emergency,  and  never  deserted  him 
He  sleeps  in  the  bosom  of  Kentucky's  soil,  among  those  whom  he  so  much  loved, 
and  who  so  much  loved  him  !  Wh»t  say  you;  will  the  vote  of  Kentucky  be  cast 
for  his  defamer?  What  say  you,  Whigs  of  Tennessee,  of  Maryland,  of  the  Union 
who  rallied  around  his  banner  so  gallantly  in  days  of  yore,  will  you  now  cast  you' 
votes  for  his  calumniator  ?  Answer  in  November  next. 

MR.  BELL'S  ABUSE  OF  GENERAL  JACKSON. 

We  have  said  that  Mr.  Bell  was  at  one  time  the  firm  supporter  and  eulogis! 
of  General  Jackson.  So  he  was  up  to  the  23d  Congress,  when  upon  the  resig 
nation  of  Mr.  Stevenson,  the  Federalists  and  Abolitionists  tendered  him  the 
Speakership  in  order  to  beat  James  K.  Polk,  the  Administration  candidate.  Mr. 
Bell's  "  easy  virtue"  could  not  withstand  the  temptation,  and  he  yielded  to  theii 
desires,  became  their  candidate,  and  through  a  coalition  of  the  Federalists,  Abo 
litionists,  Whigs,  and  disappointed  Democrats,  he  was  elected.  Yet,  he  still 
claimed  to  he  a  friend  of  General  Jackson,  and  returning  to  Tennessee,  by  his 
fulsome  eulogies  upon  the  Old  Hero,  so  deceived  the  Democrats  that  they  re- 
elected  him.  Having  failed  to  get  into  General  Jackson's  Cabinet,  for  which  he 
was  warmly  urged  by  his  friend,  Judge  White,  he  became  a  candidate  for  re-elec 
tion  to  the  Speakership,  and  in  order  to  reach  that  station,  we  find  him  making 
"  fair  weather "  with  all  the  aspiring  candidates  for  the  Presidency — Judge 
White,  of  Tennessee,  Mr.  Van  Buren,  and  Colonel  R.  M.  Johnson,  of  Kentucky. 
In  the  fall  of  1834,  he  wrote  to  the  Hon.  C.  P.  White,  the  bosom  friend  of  Mr. 
Van  Buren,  that : 

"  As  YET  TENNESSEE  HAS  TAKEN  NO  ACTIVE,  DECIDED  COURSE  ON  THIS  QUESTION,  BUT 
THE  SAGACIOUS  POLITICIANS  AMONG  US  ARE  GOING  IN  FOE  MR.  VAN  BUREN." 

The  editor  of  the  Kentucky  Gazette,  a  friend  of  Colonel  Johnson,  in  answer 
to  a  letter,  made  a  publication  in  which  he  said  : 

"  In  the  month  of  August  or  September  last,  (1834,)  I  think  it  was,  Mr.  Bell  did  write  a 
letter  to  Colonel  Johnson  of  the  character  which  you  describe,  and  which  I  saw.  I  do  not 
remember,  if,  in  that  particular  letter,  he  (Mr.  Bell)  urged  Colonel  Johnson  to  become  a 
candidate  for  the  Presidency  or  not ;  but  I  know  very  well  that  he  had  pressed  him,  and 
the  means  of  success  were  to  be  based  upon  the  grounds  to  which  you  allude,  (support  oi 
the  Bank.)" 

It  is  difficult  to  trace  the  tortuous  course  of  Mr.  Bell  at  this  time.  He  was  for 
the  administration  of  Gen.  Jackson,  and  against  the  administration  of  Gen.  Jack 
son;  he  was  for  the  United  States  Bank,  and  against  the  United  States  Bank; 
he  was  for  Mr.  Van  Buren,  and  against  Mr.  Van  Buren ;  he  was  for  Col.  John 
son,  and  against  Col.  Johnson ;  he  was  for  Judge  White,  and  against  Judge 
White;  lie  was  for  John  Bell  all  the  time,  and  never  against  John  Bell,  as  will 
be  seen  by  the  following  paragraph  from  a  letter  addressed  by  him,  May  llth, 
1835,  to  Charles  Cassidy,  esq. : 

"  To  defeat  me  for  the  Speaker's  chair  is  the  main  interest  which  Mr.  Polk  and  Johnson 
have  in  this  whole  contest,  as  I  believe. 

"  It  would  not  do  to  ask  Polk  to  vote  for  me  against  himself,  but  he  might  be  made  to 
pledge  himself  for  me  against  any  other  candidate.  My  course  in  appointing  him  Chairman 
of  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means  could  be  used  to  show  that  I  have  not  been  influenced 
by  personal  considerations  against  him,  where  the  country  is  concerned." 


23 

It  will  thus  be  observed,  that  however  tortuous  may  have  been  Mr.  Bell's 
course  upon  all  other  matters,  he  had  but  one  opinion  (to  which  all  other  opin 
ions  were  subordinate)  upon  the  propriety  of  his  own  election  to  the  Speakership. 

But  Mr.  Bell  received  but  little  encouragement  from  the  friends  of  Col.  John 
son,  Mr.  Van  Buren,  or  Mr.  Polk.  It  had  become  too  evident  that  he  was  in 
triguing  with  the  Opposition  and  forming  new  party  alliances  with  the  view  of 
greater  certainty  of  future  political  promotion. 

Mr.  Polk  defeated  him  for  the  Speakership,  however,  though  he  received  the 
whole  opposition  vote.  Yet  still  he  smothered  his  wrath,  and  did  not  attack 
Gen.  Jackson  openly.  That  would  not  have  done,  for  the  very  reason  he  after 
wards  himself  gave  that — 

>k  The  impression  is  current  and  general,  that  a  man  who  dares  to  make  a  direct  issue, 
right  or  wrong,  upon  any  matter  of  complaint  with  the  President,  must  go  down  in  public 
estimation." 

He  was  too  sly  a  fox  to  run  in  the  face  of  public  opinion,  and  besides  General 
Jackson's  term  of  office  would  not  expire  for  two  years  longer,  and  he  wanted 
some  favors  at  his  hands.  So  he  went,  home,  and  took  to  President-making. 
With  the  exception  of  Gen.  Jackson,  no  man  stood  so  high  in  the  esteem  and 
confidence  of  the  people  of  Tennessee  as  Judge  White,  then  a  Senator  from  that 
State  in  Congress,  and  an  ardent  Democrat  and  supporter  of  Gen.  Jackson's  ad 
ministration.  Gen.  Jackson's  preference  wa3  known  to  be  for  Mr.  Van  Buren — 
Mr.  Bell  attached  himself  to  Judge  White,  and  brought  him  out  as  a  candidate 
for  the  Presidency,  not,  however,  as  in  opposition  to  Gen.  Jackson.  He  was  too 
cautious  for  that.  In  a  speech  delivered  at  Nashville,  on  the  23d  of  May,  1835, 
l;c  said  : 

••  Gen.  Jackson  has  been  eminently  successful  and  triumphant  in  all  his  measures.  It  is  one 
(.i  i he  happy  consequences  of  his  GREAT  SUCCESS  that  the  friends  of  his  Administration  may 
choose  from  among  his  friends,  &c.  lie  yet  possesses  a  vast  and  undoubted  control  and 
influence  in  the  country.  *  The  friends  of  Judge  White,  therefore,  upon 

grounds  of  policy,  if  upon  no  other  and  better  ones,  will  not  seek  to  disturb  the  tranquillity 
of  Gen.  Jackson's  administration,  or  to  defeat  or  unsettle  any  of  (hose  great  measures  upon 
which  he  has  acquired  so  much  of  his  present  power  and  influence.  *  But, 

gentlemen,  the  friends  of  Judge  White  will  adhere  to  Gen.  Jackson  and  his  administration, 
from  consistency  ttttd  refpecl  for  their  own  character,  and  because  they  will  be  supporting  their 
own  principles." 

At  a  caucus  of  the  friends  of  Judge  White,  Mr.  Bell  drew  up  a  paper  in  which 
he  stated  that  if  by  running  Jud^e  White,  '•  o'ir  party  "  would  be  divided,  "  we 
ought  not  to  take  him  up."  The  old  hero  of  New  Orleans  was  not  ro  be  cheated 
or  fooled.  He  had  a  high  opinion  of  Judge  White,  but  he  appreciated  the  un 
fairness  and  injustice  of  Tennessee  again  cliiming  the  Presidency,  after  having 
had  it  for  eight  years.  He  also  appreciated  John  Bell,  as  the  following  letter, 
dated  May  10,  1835,  to  Gov.  Blount,  of  Tennessee,  will  show: 

"  1  would  to  God  that  our  old  friend,  Judge  White.,  would  soon  disentangle  himself  from 
the  false  position  that  he  has  been  placed  in  by  Bell,  Crockett  &  Co.  If  he  does  not,  he  will 
be  politically  lost,  since  John  Bell  has  turned  a  good  Whig,  and  put  him  up  as  the  candidate 
of  the  opposition." 

The  old  hero  knew  the  vacillations  and  intriguing  disposition  of  John  Bell. 
He  was  not  to  be  deceived  by  his  loud-mouthed  asseverations  of  his  fidelity  to 
the  party  and  its  principles.  He  had  watched  his  course  i;.  Congress,  and  had 
seen  him  coalescing  with  the  opposition  for  the  Speakership.  He  knew  his  man; 
and  time,  that  unerring  test,  showed  that  he  was  right.  Mr.  Vim  Buren  received 
the  nomination,  but  instead  of  taking  him  off,  Mr.  Boll  insisted  on  running 
Judge  White  as  an  independent  candidate.  And  tnen  commenced  his  abuse  of 
Gen.  Jackson.  It  was  the  last  year  of  his  Presidential  term  j  the  old  hero  was 
about  going  out  of  office,  and  would  soon  be  unable  to  dispense  those  services  and 


favors  which  he  had,  hi'tvtotore,  1  ivished  on  Mr.  Bell  ;  this  was  a  favorable  op 
portunity  to  display  tin  gratitude  and  gratify  his  malignant  feelings.  In  three 
set  speeches,  covering  54 £  closely  printed  p:iges  in  the  Congressional  Globe,  he 
assailed  Gen.  Jackson  in  the  most  vindictive  nianrer.  Listen  to  a  few  extracts: 

"But,  again  :  Is  not  the  Senate,  which  was  intended  by  the  Constitution  to  be  in  itself  a 
standing  check  and  limitation  upon  the  use  ami  abuse  of  the  Executive  patronage  to  that 
extent,  and  as  regards  that  purpose  of  its  institution,  actually  expunged,  and  that,  too,  by 
Executive  power  and  influence  ?  I  demand  of  gentlemen  to  answer  me,  and  say  if  there 
exists  at  this  moment,  practically,  any  controlling  power  in  the  Senate  over  the  will  of  the 
Executive?  Is  not  the  Constitution  itself,  for  the  time  being,  abrogated,  subverted,  over 
thrown?  All  men  must  now  see,  and  acknowledge  that  the  duty  of  sending  nominations  of 
public  etlicer.s  to  the  Senate,  for  advice  and  confirmation,  is  reduced  in  practice  to  mere 
form.  Have  we  not  a  Senate  of  the  United  States  notoriously  replenished  and  organised 
upon  thfl  principle  of  non-resistance,  and  of  passive  obedience  to  the  Executive  will  and 
authorr.y  ?  And  how,  sir,  has  this  state  of  things  been  brought  about  V  The  State  Logis- 
Imuie.-,  those  sentinel  towers,  as  they  have  heretofore  been  supposed,  upon  the  ramparts 
of  the  Constitution  and  of  the  public  liberty,  have  been  boldly  entered,  and  by  Executive 
injluencs  seduced  and  prostituted  to  purposes  of  federal  powsj-  and  domination.  *  *  *  Sir, 
I  may  add  that  the  legislative  proceedings  of  State  Assemblies  have  been  interfered  with, 
and  many  of  those  bodies  have  already  been  reduced  to  the  condition  of  mere  dependent 
and  co-ordinate  portions  of  the  great  party  machinery  by  which  it  is  supposed  this  country 
may  hereafter  be  governed — the  supple  and  convenient  instruments  of  tho  federal  Execu 
tive  !>; 

This  slander  not  only  upon  General  Jackson,  but,  upnu  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States,  finds  a  full  answer  in  the  statement  thai  it  was  c  mi  posed  of  a  majority  of 
opponents  to  the  Administration,  and  among  them  we  u'nd  the  names  of  Henrv 
Clay,  Daniel  Webster,  John  M.  Clayton,  Cnttenderi,  Mangum,  White,  Calhoun, 
John  Tyler,  and  others,  while  among  the  friends  of  General  Jackson  were  James 
Buchanan,  Silas  Wright,  Thomas  H.  Beriton,  Isaac  Hill,  and  others — all  of  them 
men  not  likely  to  be  supple  instruments  in  the  hands  of  any  man. 

The  assault  upon  the  State  Legislatures  is  equally  as  unfounded,  and  shows  the 
contempt  of  Mr.  Bell  for  the  opinions  and  views  of  the  people.  Those  State  Leg 
islatures  hud  instructed  their  Senators  on  the  questions  of  expunging  the  resolu 
tion  of  censure  against  General  Jackson,  and  in  relation  to  the  removal  of  the 
deposited.  It  was  to  these  matters  Mr.  Bell  alluded. 

He  then  goes  on  in  this  same  speech  to  charge  the  President  with  trying  to  in 
fluence  the  elections,  and  the  choice  of  his  successor,  and  assailing  those  opposed 
to  him,  by  sending  scurrilous  articles  against  them  under  his  own  frank,  and 
through  the  agency  of  the  office-holders.  And  then  closes  thus  : 

"Sir,  with  the  powers  and  influence  of  the  Executive,  as  at  present  exercised,  this  Gov 
ernment  is  an  elective  monarchy.  It  is  well  that  we  no  longer  deceive  ourselves  with  names. 
IT  IS  THIS  DAY  AN  ELECTIVE  MONARCHY." 

In  these  speeches  Mr.  Bell  accused  General  Jackson  of  striving  to  re-enact  the 
sedition  law  of  1798,  because  he  thought  Congress  ought  to  devote  itself  to  its 
legitimate  duty  of  legislation  instead  of  engaging  in  President-making ;  of  over- 
aweing  and  tyrannizing  over  Congress ;  of  concentrating  in  his  person  the  sword 
and  the  money  of  the  Government ;  of  squandering  the  public  money  in  objects 
of  internal  improvements;  of  creating  a  war  panic,  and  disarranging  the  business 
of  the  country ;  of  controlling  the  people  by  "a  series  of  pretenses  and  impos 
tures;"  of  corrupting  the  public  press,  and  the  people;  and  of  corruptly  plunging 
the  country  into  Indian  wars  withont  cause. — (See  Appendix  to  Congressional 
Globe,  1st  session,  24th  Congress,  pages  G37,  G51.)  And  all  this  from  the  man 
who  but  one  year  before  had  spoken  of  u  the  happy  consequences  of  General  Jack 
son's  great  success"  and  professed  such  devotion  to  him  and  the  party.  As  was 
to  be  expected  these  assaults  led  to  the  appointment  of  an  investigating  commit 
tee,  moved  by  the  enemies  of  General  Jackson  in  order  to  defame  his  administra- 


25 

tion,  and  to  justify  a  process  of  impeachment,  as  suggested  by  Mr.  Bell  in  the 
following  extract  from  his  speech  : 

"  Ay,  sir,  the  President  may  not  only  be  IMPEACHED  by  this  House,  but  it  is  its  bounden 
and  sacred  duty  to  impeach  him  for  adequate  cause" 

The  resolution  fixing  the  duties  of  this  committee  was  enclosed  by  the  Chair 
man  in  a  note  to  the  President.  Old  Hickory  promptly  replied : 

"  If,  after  all  the  severe  accusations  contained  in  the  various  speeches  of  yourself  and 
your  associates,  you  are  unwilling  of  your  own  accord  to  bring  specific  charges,  then  I  will 
request  your  committee  to  call  yourself  and  your  associates,  and  every  other  member  of 
Congress  who  has  made  the  general  charge  of  corruption,  to  testify,  before  God  and  our 
country,  whether  you  or  they  know  of  any  specific  corruption  or  abuse  of  trust  in  the  Ex 
ecutive  Departments ;  and  if  so,  what  it  is.  If  you  are  able  to  point  to  any  case  where  there 
is  the  slighest  reason  to  suspect  corruption  or  abuse  of  trust,  no  obstacle  which  1  can  re 
move  shall  be  interposed  to  prevent  the  fullest  scrutiny  by  all  legal  means.  The  offices  of 
all  the  Departments  will  be  opened  to  you,  and  every  proper  facility  furnished  for  this 
purpose." 

This  was  the  language  of  an  innocent  man,  who  courted  and  defied  investiga 
tion.  Mr.  Bell  was  summoned  before  that  committee  to  make  good  his  charges 
against  General  Jackson,  and  the  following  question  asked  him  : 

"Do  you  of  your  own  knowledge  know  of  any  act  by  the  President  or  either  of  the  heads 
of  the  Executive  Departments,  which  is  either  corrupt,  or  a  violation  of  their  official 
duties  ?" 

After  protesting  against  subjecting  him  to  an  examination  of  this  character, 
and  admitting  that  he  knew  nothing  of  his  own  knowledge,  he  proceeds  to  state 
his  "  beliefs,"  thus  : 

"  I  consider  every  appointment  or  employment  made  or  confirmed  by  the  President,  or 
any  of  the  heads  of  the  Executive  Departments,  as  the  consideration  of  services  and  in 
fluence  in  any  election,  as  a  gross  violation  of  official  duty.  I  believe  that  most  of  the  ap 
pointments  made  of  late  were  made  chiefly  with  that  motive. 

11  The  interference  of  the  President,  and  other  public  officers,  with  his  knowledge  and 
connivance,  in  elections,  I  believe  to  be  one  of  the  most  mischievous  and  dangerous  prac 
tices  of  the  existing  Administration. 

"  I  believe  there  has  been  a  gross  violation  of  official  duty  under  the  present  Administra 
tion  in  the  appointment,  by  the  President  or  the  heads  of  the  Departments,  of  numerous 
officers  as  agents  of  the  Department,  and  in  annexing  to  such  appointments  stated  salaries 
and  allowances,  without  authority  or  warrant  of  law."  (Mr.  Bell  certainly  could  not  have 
read  the  revenue  law  of  1798,  which  authorizes  the  employment  of  agents  of  the  Depart 
ment.) 

Concerning  the  Indian  wars,  without  giving  any  facts,  Mr.  Bell  testified  to 
his  impressions  thus : 

"I  therefore  feel  well  warranted  in  my  own  mind,  in  attributing  to  the  imbecility, CULPA 
BLE  NEGLECT,  or  the  CORRUPTION  of  the  Administration,  all  the  blood  and  expenditure 
which  have  attended  our  recent  hostile  relations  with  the  Creek  Indians,  and  much  of  the  DISHONOR 
which  must  attach  to  the  country  by  the  reason  of  speculations  in  their  lands." 

He  then  concludes  by  saying  that  he  "  considers"  that  the  President  was 
guilty  of  "a  gross  violation  of  official  duty,  in  failing  to  inquire"  into  the 
abuses  of  the  Post  Office  Department, 

The  committee  in  reference  to  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Bell  and  others,  re 
ported  : 

"They  were  called  upon  as  the  best  source  te  furnish  the  committee  with  proofs,  or  with 
the  names  of  witnesses ;  and,  instead  of  doing  so,  they  make  complaints  against  the  com 
mittee  and  the  President,  as  if  they  were  the  authors  of  the  charges,  the  movers  of  the 
resolution  of  inquiry,  and  the  promoters  of  this  whole  question  of  investigation.  They 
testify  to  no  corrupt  act  that  they  know,  but  to  much  that  they  "have  been  informed  of 
and  verily  believe,"  but  give  no  names  of  informers  or  witnesses,  who  know  the  alleged 
acts  of  corruption  in  official  duty."  App.  to  Gales  &  Seaton's  Register,  voL  13,  part  2, 
s  189. 


.26 

Thus  was  Gen.  Jackson  vindicated,  and  his  defamer,  John  Bell,  covered 
with  confusion  and  shame.  A  man  of  feeling  would  have  shrunk  from  the 
public  gaze,  and  sought  oblivion  in  retirement.  But  not  so  John  Bell..  The 
very  next  year  he  had  the  audacity  and  impudence  to  arraign  Gen.  Jackson 
before  the  country,  and  declare  that  he  ought  to  have  been  impeached  !  Heal 
him: 

"It  has  been  my  opinion,  and  I  have  not  yet  parted  from  it,  that  the  late  President 
(Gen.  Jackson)  did  trample  upon  some  of  the  most  important  and  vital  principles  of  the 
Constitution.  That  no  impeachment  was  actually  moved  against  him,  way  not  because  there 
was  any  doubt  that  the  Constitution  was  invaded  and  trampled  upon,  nor  because  the  sub- 
ject  escaped  attention  at  the  time;  for,  sir,  I,  for  one,  did  call  the  attention  of  this  Huu  r 
to  the  subject,  and  declared  my  solemn  conviction  to  be,  that  until  a  great  example  *h<>u  <i 
be  exhibited  of  the  power  and  justice  of  this  House  by  impeachment,  the  evils  of  which 
we  most  complained  would  be  progressive.  And  1  questioned  whether  any  other  a<iequ:»ie 
remedy  could  be  applied,  under  the  Constitution,  But,  sir,  I  did  riot  think  of  moving  ?m 
impeachment  against  the  late  President,  because,  considering  his  great  popularity  (:n  ; 
influence  with  the  people — that,  during  the  last  years  of  his  administration,  and  which 
were  clearly  the  worst,  he  was  sustained  in  all  his  conduct  by  a  great  majority  in  this 
House  and  in  the  Senate — I  held  that  to  provoke,  without  the  power  to  restrain,  wou'd 
only  aggravate  the  evils  of  the  times,  and  bring  additional  injury  upon  the  country  and  it* 
institutions.  An  impeachment,  under  such  circumstances,  was  not  to  be  thought  of  by  a 
prudent  statesman." — App.  to  Cong.  Globe,  2d  sess.  25th  Cong.,  page  560. 

Friends  of  Jackson !  who  followed  his  proud  banner  through  the  thickest  of 
the  fight,  and  who  loved  the  old  soldier  when  he  was  alive,  now  that  he  is 
dead  and  gone  to  his  silent  grave,  will,  you  not  rebuke  this  calumniator  of  his 
honor,  his  integrity,  and  his  fame?  Answer  at  the  ballot-box  on  the  ides  of 
November  next ! 

HIS  OPPOSITION  TO  THE  MEXICAN  WAR. 

The  people  cannot  have  forgotten  the  vehemence  with  which  the  Mexican  war 
was  denounced,  especially  by  the  Abolitionists  of  the  North.     One  of   then- 
Senators,   Mr.   Corwin,   encouraged   the  Mexicans  to  greet  our  soldiers  "  with 
bloody  hands  and  welcome  them  to  hospitable  graves/'     Amos  Tuck,  of  Neve 
Hampshire,  in  his  abolition  frenzy  said :  "  Let  the  same  vote  that  declared  the 
war  unnecessary  and  unconstitutional,   starve  it  to  death  by  withholding  sup 
plies."     Abraham  Lincoln,  now  the  Black  Republican  candidate  for  President, 
rising  in  his  place   in   the  House  of   Representatives,   denounced  it  as  a  wai 
in  which  the   Mexicans  were  in  the  right  and  the  Americans  in  the  wrorv 
declaring  that  the  President  "  feels  the  blood  of  this  war,   like  the  blood    • 
Abel,  crying  to  Heaven  against  him/7     Where  stood  John  Bell?     Side  by  ;••   • 
with  Lincoln,  Corwin,  and  Tuck,   in  opposing  the  prosecution  of  the  war  iw 
resisting  the  recommendation  of  the  President  for  an  increase  of  the  miliuu^ 
force.     He  voted  with  the  Abolitionists  against  the  Ten  Regiment  bill       L 
went  farther,  and  in  his  speech  defended  the  course  of  these  men,  and   c<n. 
selled  the  President  to  withdraw  the  army.     Here  is  his  own  language  : 

"I  hold,  sir,  for  one,  that  gentlemen  who  believe  this  war  to  be  unjust  and  iniqu»  < 
or,  whether  just  or  unjust,  that  the  further  prosecution  of  it  is  likely  to  inflict  upo 
country  greater  evils  than  can  be  compensated  by  all  the  territorial  acquisitions  which  tin 
courage  and  resources  ot  the  country  may  achieve,  have  a  perfect  right  to  arraign  t  x 
authors  and  advocates  of  it  at  the  bar  of  public  opinion,  and  to  THWART  THEM  l.y  »il 
the  means  of  speech,  writing,  and  voting  which  the  Constitution  warrants.  I  hold,  sir", 
that  to  deny  them  the  exercise  of  this  privilege  by  law  would  be  an  act  of  despotism  umh-i 
legal  forms;  and  to  seek  to  forestall  the  exercise  of  this  privilege  by  intimidation  and  tht- 
Influence  of  official  denunciation  by  charging  those  who  avail  themselves  of  this  privilege 
as  the  allies  of  the  public  enemy  and  their  auxiliaries  in  the  war,  is  an  attempt  at  moral 
despotism  only  to  be  excused  ae  an  emanation  of  excessive  and  over-heated  zeal,  in  which 
neither  the  judgment  nor  a  proper  regard  for  the  institutions  of  freedom  have  had  much 


27 

"But,  sir,  should  the  tone  of  remonstrance  against  this  war  rise  so  high  in  this  chamber 

AS    TO    PENETRATE    EVEEY  VALE  IN    MEXICO,  REVERBERATING    AMONG    HER    MOUNTAINS,  AND 

ROUSE  THE  WHOLE  COUNTRY  TO  A  SPIRIT  OF  RESISTANCE  to  the  attempt  to  sub 
due  them  to  our  dominion,  there  are  those  who  believe  that  a  greater  calamity  may  befall 
this  country  in  the  further  prosecution  of  the  war  than  even  such  a  result  as  that. 

"Sir,  if  any  should  now  desire  to  know  my  poor  opinion  upon  the  proper  mode  of  termi 
nating  this  war,  I  say  to  them  to  make  the  best  treaty  with  any  existing  government  you 
can.  If  you  must  have  the  Territories  of  New  Mexico  and  California,  get  a  cession  of 
them;  if  you  cannot  do  that,  come  back  to  the  Rio  Grande,  to  the  boundary  you  claim  title 
to,  and  thus  save  your  honor. 

My  advice  is,  slop  the  war!  FLEE  THE  COUNTRY  AS  YOU  WOULD  A  CITY  DOOMED  TO  DE 
STRUCTION  BY  FIRE  FROM  HEAVEN  !" 

It  will  thus  be  seen  that  Mr.  Bell  was  unwilling  that  an  outraged  public  senti 
ment  should  shame  into  silence  the  moral  treason  of  the  Abe  Lincolus,  Tom  Cor- 
wins,  Amos  Tucks  and  others,  but  that  they  should  be  permitted  to  go  on  in  their 
efforts  to  "  thwart"  the  Government  in  its  prosecution  of  the  war,  "  by  every 
means  of  speech,  writing  and  voting,"  even  "  should  the  tone  of  remonstrance 
rise  so  high  as  to  penetrate  every  vale  in  Mexico,  reverberate  among  her  moun 
tains,  and  HOUSE  the  whole  population  to  a  spirit  of  resistance."  What  mat 
tered  it  to  him  that  Americans  were  there  in  deadly  conflict  with  the  enemy  of 
their  country  ?  No  blood  of  his  coursed  the  veins  of  an  American  soldier. 

JOHN  BELL  ON  KNOW-NOTHINGISM. 

After  helping  to  throw  over  Mr.  Clay,  in  1848,  and  in  1850  proposing  the 
admission  as  a  State  of  New  Mexico,  with  a  population  composed  principally  of 
44  civilized,  half-civilized,  uncivilized,  and  barbarous"  Indians,  Spaniards,  and 
Mexicans,  we  find  Mr.  Bell,  in  1855,  engaged  in  performing  funeral  obsequies 
over  the  death  of  the  old  Whig  party,  which  he,  more  than  any  other  one  man, 
had  contributed  to  kill,  and  in  organizing  a  "new"  (Know-Nothing)  party  in  its 
stead.  In  September,  1855,  he  proceeded*  to  Knoxville,  Tennessee,  and  delivered 
a  set.  speech,  which  was  afterwards  printed  in  pamphlet  form,  and  distributed 
through  the  country.  We  make  the  following  extracts  from  it : 

"  I  have  said  that  the  Whig  banner  no  longer  floats  over  the  stand  in  political  assemblies 
in  Tennessee.  Tkat  is  true ;  but  it  has  given  place  to  another  ensign,  under  which,  I  trust, 
all  true  and  conservative  patriots  of  both  the  old  parties  will  rally,  and  make  it  equally 
glorious  and  more  triumphant  than  the  one  which  it  has  supplanted  ;  and,  that  it  may  never 
have  to  be  lowered  or  resign  its  place  to  any  other,  less  signiiicant  of  patriotic  purposes 
and  stern  determination  to  maintain  the  national  character  and  institutions  against  all 
who  would  change  the  one  or  undermine  the  other.  * 

"The  councils  of  the  American  Order  are  denounced  as  secret  political  societies,  fraught 
with  and  tending  to  all  the  mischiefs  and  atrocities  of  the  Jacobin  clubs  of  Paris  in  the 
French  revolution  ;  yet  since  the  order  has  become  a  political  party  all  their  alleged  secret 
proceedings  are  known,  almost  upon  the  instant,  to  the  public.  The  oaths  administered 
on  initiation  of  members,  are  denounced  as  immoral  and  amounting  to  a  surrender  of  all 
freedom  and  independence  in  the  exercise  of  the  elective  franchise;  yet  the  oaths  admin 
istered  in  various  other  secret  societies,  or  voluntary  associations  in  this  country,  pass 
without  notice  or  censure;  and  it  is  well  known  to  these  assailants,  that  any  member  of  the 
Order  can  set  aside  the  obligation  of  the  oath  he  takes,  so  strongly  objected  to,  at  discre 
tion,  by  withdrawing  from  the  Order.  The  exclusion  of  Roman  Catholics  from  the  offi 
cial  pale  is  denounced  as  prescriptive,  and  an  attempt  to  establish  a  religious  test,  in  vio 
lation  of  the  constitution.  The  exclusion  of  naturalized  foreigners  from  all  official  stations 
is  denounced  as  prescriptive  and  likewise  a  violation  of  the  constitutional  rights  of  that 
class  of  citizens.  To  propose  an  amendment  to  the  constitution  by  which  Romanists  shall 
be  excluded  from  office,  might  justly  be  considered  an  attempt  to  establish  a  religious  test; 
and  to  propose  to  exclude  naturalized  foreigners  from  office,  by  an  amendment  to  the  con 
stitution,  might,  with  truth,  be  sai«i  to  be  an  attempt  to  proscribe  them  ;  but  the  organiza 
tion  of  a  political  party,  upon  the  principle  or  policy  of  withholding  the  support  and  suf 
frages  of  the  members  of  that  party  in  the  public  elections  from  Roman  Catholics  and 
naturalized  citizens — and  that  is  all  the  American  party  proposes  to  do — cannot,  by  any 


28 

fair  reasoning,  or  ingenious  sophistry,  be  shown  to  be  an  attempt  to  establish  a  religions 
test  »r  to  proscribe  any  class  of  citizens;  nor,  in  regard  either  to  Romanists  or  naturalized 
citizens,  can  the  argument  be  maintained  that  the  American  party,  in  -withholding  from 
them  their  support  in  elections,  is  guilty  of  a  violation  of  the  constitution,  in  letter  or 
spirit ;  unless  the  practice  and  maxims  of  both  the  great  parties,  which  have  so  long  con 
tended  for  the  possession  of  power  in  this  country,  in  elections  and  appointments  to  and 
removals  from  office,  be  admitted  to  be  in  violation  of  the  constitution,  or  its  spirit.  *  * 

"  The  very  name  of  the  new  party — American,  struck  terror  into  the  leaders  of  the  De 
mocracy.  The  prestige  of  the  name  of  the  Democratic  party,  which  had  been  a  tower  of 
strength  to  it,  they  foresaw,  was  likely  to  be  so  no  longer,  and  they  made  haste  to  seize 
whatever  advantage,  by  way  of  indemnity  for  the  loss,  they  might  expect  to  derive  from 
the  new  issues  presented  by  the  new  party,  and  if  they  could  not  destroy  it  in  its  birth, 
they  calculated  that  by  the  violence  of  their  assaults  upon  its  policy,  and  their  zealous  ad 
vocacy  of  the  cause  of  foreigners  and  Romanists,  at  least  to  secure  their  undivided  support 
in  future  elections ;  and  thus  establish  the  relation  of  patron  and  client  in  our  country, 
between  the  Democratic  party  and  the  foreign  population,  founded  on  the  basis  of  protec 
tion  on  the  one  side,  and  support  on  the  other ; — a  formidable  alliance  truly!  but  if  the 
American  party  shall  succeed  in  cutting  off  the  perennial  supply  of  fresh  recruits  to  the  Demo 
cratic  standard,  derived  from  the  annual  influx  of  the  half  million  of  foreigners  or  more,  the 
Democratic  leaders  may  still  find  that  they  will  have  to  fight  their  future  battles  with  diminished 
chances  of  success.  But  whatever  alliances  the  Democrats  may  form  with  foreigners  and 
Roman  Catholics, — however  the  leaders  may  fret  and  rage, — with  whatever  obstinacy  of 
purpose  they  may  seek  to  resist  or  crush  the  American  party,  they  will  fail  to  defeat  the 
great  end  and  fundamental  policy  of  that  party. 

"  The  fears  of  the  timid  have  been  appealed  to,  by  the  assailants  of  the  American  party, 
and  their  co-operation  invoked,  in  putting  it  down,  on  the  alleged  ground  that  its  policy  in 
regard  to  foreigners  tends  to  provoke  riot  and  bloodshed.  It  is  said  that  this  new  party 
has  been  stained  with  blood  in  its  very  birth,  and  that  from  this  we  may  augur  a  bloody 
future.  Yes,  blood  has  been  shed,  and  it  may  foreshadow  a  bloody  future.  I  will  not  stop 
to  inquire  who  provoked  the  shedding  of  blood  in  Louisville,  and  other  places ;  but  this  I 
will  say,  that  whatever  party  may  have  given  the  provocation,  it  is  better  that  a  little  blood 
should  sprinkle  the  pavements  and  sidewalks  of  our  cities  now,  than  that  their  streets 
should  be  drenched  in  blood  hereafter ;  or  that  the  highways  and  open  fields  of  our  coun 
try  should  drink  up  the  blood  of  its  citizens  slain  in  deadly  conflict  between  armed  bands, 
it  may  be  between  disciplined  legions — native  Americans  on  the  one  side,  and  foreigners, 
supported  by  native  faetionists,  on  the  other.  And  this  will  be  our  future  unless,  now 
and  before  it  is  too  late,  we  erect  sufficient,  barriers  to  arrest  the  torrent  of  aliens  and 
strangers  which  threatens  in  a  few  years  more  to  flood  the  whole  land." 

We  have  made  full  extracts  from  this  speech.  We  wish  to  do  him  no  injus 
tice.  We  have  given  him  the  full  benefit  of  his  argument.  Look  at  it  I  Read 
it !  Study  its  import  and  its  meaning  !  Was  such  a  cold-blooded  speech  ever 
before  delivered  in  this  country  ?  We  know  that  there  were  many  well-inten 
tioned  but  unreflecting  men  decoyed  into  this  new  and  now  odious  organization, 
who,  while  sanctioning  its  principles  of  hostility  to  a  supposed  dangerous  increase 
of  the  foreign  element  in  our  country,  yet  loathed  and  condemned  the  bloody 
persecutions  which  reigned  in  some  of  our  large  cities.  But  not  so  with  Mr. 
Bell.  A.  man  of  mature  years,  when  the  passions  are  supposed  to  have  subsided, 
and  of  long  experience  in  the  public  service,  we  see  him  stepping  forward  not 
only  to  endorse  the  principles  of  this  "  new  "  party,  but  also  to  justify  its  acts  of 
bloodshed,  and,  as  a  consequence,  to  incite  the  lawless  men  who  had  engaged  in 
it  to  still  further  acts  of  murder  and  rapine.  Was  such  a  spectacle  ever  before 
presented  to  the  people  of  this  country  ?  "  Better  that  a  little  blood  should 
sprinkle  the  pavements  and  sidewalks  of  our  cities  !"  To  what  did  he  allude  ? 
To  the  horrors  enacted  in  Louisville  on  "  Bloody  Monday."  Has  this  scene 
passed  from  the  recollection  of  the  people  ?  It  occurred  on  the  6th  of  August, 
1855,  only  about  a  month  and  a  half  before  Mr.  Bell  made  his  speech.  Is  it 
necessary  to  rehearse  the  horrors  of  that  day — to  tell  that  the  corpses  of  twenty 
dead  men  were  picked  up  on  the  pavements,  whose  blood  had  sprinkled  the  side 
walks — to  recite  how  five  men  were  penned  up  in  a  building  and  roasted  to  death — 
tb  depict  the  horrors  of  the  brefwery  scene,  where,  after  the  building  was  fired, 


29 

cannon  was  stationed  so  as  to  prevent  the  egress  of  the  inmates,  and  how  from 
its  ruins  was  dragged  the  charred  remains  of  a  woman  hugging  her  infant  to  her 
breast?  Our  heart  sickens  at  the  bare  thought  of  such  horrors;  and  yet  this  old 
man — John  Bell — gets  up  in  a  public  meeting,  and  in  the  coolest  manner,  tells 
his  audience  that  it  is  "better"  such  scenes  should  occur;  "  better  that  a  little 
blood  should  sprinkle  the  pavements  and  sidewalks,"  than  that  this  "new"  party 
should  not  rule  America.  We  cannot  trust  ourselves  to  comment  upon  such  con 
duct. 

We  might  go  on  and  show  that,  after  announcing  in  the  Senate  that  if 
the  people  of  Tennessee  decided  against  him  on  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  he 
would  resign,  he  proved  recreant  to  his  promise,  after  they  had  at  three  elections 
condemned  his  course,  and  the  Legislature,  in  obedience  to  the  popular  will,  had 
requested  him  to  resign ;  that  he  has  been  for  and  against  a  national  bank,  for 
and  against  a  protective  tariff,  for  and  against  the  distribution  of  the  proceeds  of 
the  public  lands  among  the  States,  for  and  against  internal  improvements,  and 
river  and  harbor  appropriations,  in  short,  for  and  against  every  measure  that  was 
canvassed  during  his  political  life ;  but  we  forbear.  We  have  presented  enough 
to  show  what  manner  of  a  politician  he  has  been.  We  now  leave  him  to  the 
judgment  of  the  people. 


EDWARD    EVERETT. 

The  position  of  candidate  for  Vice-President,  although  always  important,  is 
rendered  now  not  even  second  in  importance  to  that  of  the  candidate  for  Presi 
dent,  if  we  are  to  believe  the  predictions  of  the  supporters  of  Bell  and  Everett. 
They  argue  that  the  election  is  sure  to  go  into  the  House  of  Representatives, 
and  their  hope  is,  in  case  the  Black-Republicans  will  not  come  to  their  aid,  as 
they  say  they  have  promised  to  do,  and  elect  Mr.  Bell,  that  they  can  succeed  in 
giving  enough  electoral  votes  to  Everett  to  place  him  ahead  of  General  Lane,  and 
second  to  Hamlin ;  and  that  as  the  Senate,  according  to  the  Constitution,  is  com 
pelled  to  choose  between  the  two  candidates  receiving  the  highest  electoral  votes, 
they  will  be  compelled,  as  a  choice,  to  take  Mr.  Everett.  According  to  their 
ideas,  the  position  of  Mr.  Everett  then  becomes  as  important  as  that  of  Mr.  Bell. 
In  order,  therefore,  to  show  the  southern  people  what  sort  of  a  President  they  would 
have  in  him,  should  the  hopes  of  his  followers  be  realized,  we  invite  their  atten 
tion  to 

HIS  RECORD  ON  THE  SLAVERY  QUESTION. 

Mr.  Everett  was  in  the  House  of  Representatives  with  Mr.  Bell,  and  voted, 
like  him,  for  the  reception,  printing,  and  reference  of  Abolition  petitions. 

On  the  14th  of  October,  1837,  Hon.  Wm.  Jackson,  of  Newton,  Massachusetts, 
wrote  to  Mr.  Everett  a  long  letter  containing  the  following  questions : 

"Do  justice,  humanity,  and  sound  policy,  alike  require  that  the  slaves  of  this  country 
should  be  emancipated  ? 

"  Is  it  the  right  and  duty  of  the  citizens  of  the  non-alaveholding  States  to  require  of  the 
general  government  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia  ?  . 

"la  it  just  or  safe,  with  regard  to  our  foreign  relations  and  domestic  compact,  to  admit 
Texas  into  the  Union?" 

To  these  inquiries  Mr.  Everett  replied  : 

"BOSTON,  October  31,  1837. 

"  SIR:  I  have  duly  received  your  communication  of  the  14th  instant,  in  which  you  desire 
to  be  furnished  with  my  views  on  certain  questions  therein  propounded.  Under  other  cir- 


eumstanees  I  should  deem  it  proper  to  preface  my  answer  with  some  preliminary  remarks, 
but  my  engagements  at  the  present  time  compel  me  to  reply  as  concisely  as  possible. 

"In  answer  to  the  first  question,  I  observe,  that  slavery  being,  by  universal  admission, 
A  SOCIAL,  POLITICAL,  AND  MORAL  EVIL  OF  THE  FIRST  MAGNITUDE,  it  is  required  by  justice, 
humanity,  and  sound  policy,  that  the  slaves  should  be  emancipated  by  those  having  consti 
tutionally  the  power  to  effect  that  object,  as  soon  as  it  can  be  done  peacefully,  and  in  a 
manner  to  better  the  condition  of  the  emancipated. 

"  In  reply  to  the  second  question,  I  would  remark,  that  all  the  considerations  in  favor  of 
emancipation  in  the  States  apply  with  equal  force  to  the  Distpict  of  Columbia.  My  opin 
ions  on  this  subject  are  fully  expressed  in  the  resolution  adopted  by  the  Legislature  last 
winter,  with  a  near  approach  to  unanimity,  in  the  following  terms : 

"  '  Resolved,  That  Congress  having  exclusive  legislation  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  pos 
sesses  the  right  to  ABOLISH  SLAVERY  in  the  said  District,  and  that  its  exercise  should 
onlj  be  restrained  by  regard  to  the  public  good.' 

"  The  last  question  propounded  by  you  refers  to  the  annexation  of  Texas.  It  presents 
the  subject  of  slavery,  in  most  of  its  bearings,  in  a  new  light. 

"The  whole  subject  has  been  so  ably  discussed  by  Dr.  Channing,  in  his  recent  letter  to 
Mr.  Clay,  that  it  would  be  superfluous  to  enlarge  upon  it.  I  will  only  say,  that  if,  at  this 
moment,  when  an  all-important  experiment  is  in  train,  to  abolish  slavery  by  legal  and 
peaceable  means  in  the  West  Indies,  the  United  States,  instead  of  imitating  their  example, 
or  even  awaiting  their  result,  should  rush  into  a  policy  of  giving  an  indefinite  extension  to 
slavery  over  a  vast  region  incorporated  into  the  Union,  we  should  stand  condemned  before 
the  civilized  world.  It  would  be  in  vain  to  expect  to  gain  credit  for  any  further  professions 
of  a  willingness  to  be  rid  of  slavery  as  soon  as  possible.  No  extenuation  of  its  existence, 
on  the  ground  of  its  having  been  forced  upon  the  country,  in  its  colonial  state,  would  any 
longer  avail  us.  It  would  be  thought,  and  thought  justly,  that  lust  of  power  and  lust  of 
gold  had  made  us  deaf  to  the  voice  of  HUMANITY  and  JUSTICE.  We  should  be  self- 
convicted  of  the  ENORMOUS  CRIME  of  having  VOLUNTARILY  given  the  greatest  pos 
sible  ENLARGEMENT  to  an  evil,  which,  in  concert  with  the  rest  of  mankind,  we  had  af 
fected  to  deplore,  and  that  at  a  time  when  the  public  sentiment  of  the  civilized  world, 
more  than  at  any  former  period,  is  aroused  to  its  magnitude. 

"  I  am,  sir,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

"EDWARD  EVERETT." 

"Hon.  WILLIAM  JACKSON." 

In  1839,  the  following  interrogatories  were  propounded  to  Mr.  Everett,  by 
the  Hon.  Nathaniel  Borden,  of  Massachusetts  : 

1.  Are  you  in  favor  of  immediate  abolition  by  law  of  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia, 
and  of  the  slave  traffic  between  the  States  of  the  Union  ? 

2.  Are  you  opposed  to  the  admission  into  the  Union  of  any  new  State,  the  constitution 
of  which  tolerates  domestic  slavery  ? 

The  following  is  his  reply  : 

WASHINGTON,  Oct.  24,  1839. 

"DEAR  SIR:  On  Saturday  last  only  I  received  your  letter  of  the  18th,  propounding  to  me 
certain  interrogatories,  and  earnestly  requesting  an  early  answer. 

You  are  aware  that  several  resolves  on  the  subject  of  these  inquiries  and  their  kindred 
topics,  accompanied  by  a  very  able  report,  was  introduced  into  the  Senate  of  the  Common 
wealth  year  before  last,  by  a  joint  committee  of  the  two  Houses,  of  which  the  late  la 
mented  Mr.  Alvord  was  chairman. 

Those  resolves,  after  having  been  somewhat  enlarged  by  amendment,  were  adopted  by 
the  Legislature.  They  appear  to  cover  the  whole  ground  of  your  two  interrogatories. 
Having  cheerfully  co-operated  in  the  pannage  of  the  resolves,  and  concurring  in  the  gen 
eral  reasoning  by  which  they  are  sustained  in  the  powerful  report  of  the  chairman  of  the 
committee,  /  respond  to  both  your  inquiries  in  tlie  affirmative. 

The  first  of  the  three  subjects  embraced  in  your  inquiry,  is  the  only  one  of  them  which 
came  before  Congress  while  I  was  a  member.  I  voted  in  the  negative  on  the  motion  to  lay 
upon  the  table. the  petition  of  the  American  Anti-Slavery  Society,  for  the  abolition  of  sla 
very  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  and  on  other  motions  of  the  like  character  introduced  to 
cast  off  the  consideration  of  this  class  of  petitions. 

I  am,  dear  sir,  very  respectfully,  your  friend  and  servant, 

EDWARD  EVERETT." 

Hon.  NATHANIEL  A.  BORDEN. 

Those  "resolves"  referred  to  were  a  set  of  resolutions  adopted  by  the  Ma#- 


f^clmsetts  Legislature  during  the  year  previous,  when   Mr.  Everett  was  Gov 
ernor  of  the  State,  and  are  as  follows  : 

P;:solved,  That  Congress  has,  by  the  Constitution,  power  to  abolish  slavery  and  the  slave 
trade  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  and  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  terms  or  circumstances 
f  the.  acts  of  cession  by  Virginia  and  Maryland,  or  otherwise,  enforcing  any  legal  or  moral 
re-lraint.  on  its  exercise. 

iie.solved,  That  Congress  ought  to  take  measures  to  effect  the  ABOLITION  OF  SLAVERY 
IN  THE  DISTRICT  OF  COLUMBIA. 

Resolved,  That  the  rights  of  humanity,  the  claims  of  justice,  and  the  common  good,  alike 
demand  the  suppression  by  Congress  of  the  slave  trade  carried  on  in  and  through  the  Dis- 
nvict  of  Columbia. 

Resolved,  That  Congress  has,  by  the  Constitution,  power  to  abolish  slavery  in  the  Territo- 
•m  of  the  United  States. 

.  csolved,  That  no  new  State  shall  hereafter  be  admitted  into  the  Union  whose  constitution 
r  t,,i  government  shall  permit  the  existence  of  domestic  slavery  therein. 

Resolved,  That  Congress  has,  by  the  Constitution,  power  to  abolish  the  traffic  in  slaves  be- 
•  ween  the  different  States  of  the  Union. 

Resolved,  That  the  exercise  of  this  power  is  demanded  by  the  principles  of  humanity  and 
justice. 

Mr.  Everett,  by  his  letters  and  votes,  now  stands  pledged  to  these  doctrines : 
Ut  The  power  and  the  duty  of  Congress  to  abolish  slavery  in  the  District  of 
Columbia;  2d.  The  power  and  the  duty  of  Congress  to  abolish  slavery  in  the 
Territories  of  the  United  States ;  3d.  The  power  and  the  duty  of  Congress  to  abol 
ish  the  slave  trade  between  the  States;  and,  4th.  The  admission  of  no  more  slave 
States.  He  lias  never  taken  back  or  recanted  these  opinions.  We  defy  any  of 
his  supporters  to  point  to  the  letter  or  speech  in  which  he  has  taken  back  one  of 
these  doctrines,  or  even  intimated  that  his  mind  has  undergone  a  change  in  refer 
ence  to  them.  We  affirm  that  no  such  document  can  be  produced.  Is  it  any 
wonder,  then,  that  that  infamous  Abolitionist,  William  Lloyd  Garrison,  he  who 
declared  that  "  the  American  Constitution  is  a  league  with  the  devil  and  a  cov 
enant  with  hell/'  bespattered  Mr.  Everett  with  praise,  and  hoisted  his  name  for 
Governor,  in  1839  ? 

In  1841,  when  Mr.  Everett  was  nominated  by  General  Harrison  as  Minister  to 
England,  it  appears  that  his  confirmation  was  delayed  in  the  Senate,  and  it  was 
whispered  that  he  would  be  rejected.  Instantly  the  whole  Abolition  press  was  in 
a  furor  of  excitement. 

One  of  them,  the  Boston  Free  American,  was  very  indignant  at  "  Southern 
arrogance  and  impudence  assuming  a  censorship  over  Northern  opinions."  In 
deed,  so  well  known  was  Mr.  Everett  as  an  Abolitionist,  that  the  legislature  of 
Georgia  passed,  in  1841,  a  resolution  censuring  one  of  their  Senators,  Mr.  Ber- 
rien,  for  voting  to  confirm  his  nomination. 

Mr.  Everett  was  in  the  Senate  in  1854,  and  ppoke  against  the  Kansas-Nebras 
ka  bill,  and  voted  against  the  clause  repealing  the  Missouri  Compromise.  He 
was  absent  when  the  vote  was  taken  on  the  bill,  but  afterwards,  in  the  Senate, 
stated  that  ulfl  had  been  here  my  vote  would  have  been  recorded  in  the  nega 
tive  on  the  passage  of  the  bill."  Congressional  Globe,  1st  session,  33d  Congress, 
page  550. 

We  come  down  to  a  later  date,  to  the  Presidential  election  of  1856.  The 
notorious  and  infamous  Abolition  Senator  from  Massachusetts,  Charles  Sumner, 
rose  in  his  place  in  the  Senate  chamber,  and  delivered  the  vilest  and  most  vin 
dictive,  malignant,  and  brutal  attack  upon  the  southern  people,  calling  them 
"  hirelings,  picked  from  the  drunken  spew  of  an  uneasy  civilization,"  and  assail 
ing  Senators  Butler  and  Mason  in  the  coarsest  language.  Speaking  of  Kansas, 
he  ^aid  :  "  It  is  the  rape  of  a  virgin  Territory,  compelling  it  to  the  hateful  em 
brace  of  slavery."  And  then,  swelling  with  his  subject  he  thus  launched  forth : 

rt  JKrea^ythe  nrasfcw  had  J*agpun>     The  strifte  is  no  linger  local,  but  national.     Even  DOTF 


32 

while  I  speak,  portents  hang  on  all  the  arches  of  the  horizon,  threatening  to  darken  the 
broad  land,  which  already  yawns  with  the  mutterinys  of  CIVIL  WAR.  The  fury  of  the  propa 
gandists  of  slavery,  and  the  calm  determination  of  their  opponents,  are  now  diffused  from 
tho  distant  Territory  over  wide-spread  communities,  and  the  whole  country  in  all  its  ex 
tent — marshalling  hostile  divisions,  an  1  foreshadowing  a  strife,  which,  unless  happily  averted 
by  the  triumph  of  freedom,  will  become  WAR— FRATRICIDAL,  PARRICIDAL  WAR— with 
an  accumulated  wickedness  beyond  the  wickedness  of  any  war  in  human  annals." 

And  all  this  because  Congress  would  not  sanction  the  doings  of  a  set  of  rebels 
and  lawless  men  in  Kansas,  who,  in  defiance  of  the  legal  authorities,  had  met  at 
Topeka,  and  set  up  a  Government  of  their  own,  and  claimed  the  admission  of 
Kansas  as  a  free  State  under  their  lawless  authority !  We  have  not  space  for 
extended  extracts  from  this  miserable  document,  and  will,  therefore,  only  give 
one  more : 

"  In  offering  herself  for  admission  into  the  Union  as  a  free  State,  she  presents  a  single 
issue  for  the  people  to  decide.  And  since  the  slave  power  now  stakes  on  this  issue  all  its 
ill-gotten  supremacy,  the  people,  while  vindicating  Kansas,  will  at  the  same  time  OVER 
THROW  THIS  TYRANNY.  Thus  does  the  contest  which  she  now  begins  involve  not  only 
liberty  for  herself,  but  for  the  whole  country." 

This  speech  created  a  perfect  furor  of  indignation.  General  Cass  denounced  it 
in  his  place  in  the  Senate  as  "the  most  un-American  and  unpatriotic  that 
ever  grated  upon  the  ears  of  the  members  of  this  high  body."  No  one  can 
forget  the  chastisement  administered  to  Sumner  for  his  abuse,  by  Mr.  Brooks, 
of  South  Carolina.  There  was-a  man,  however,  in  this  country,  who  could  denounce 
in  a  speech  at  Taunton,  Mass.,  the  course  of  Mr.  Brooks  as  "  an  act  of  lawless 
violence,  of  which  I  know  no  parallel  in  the  history  of  constitutional  govern 
ment,"  yet  had  no  other  than  words  of  praise  and  approval  of  Mr.  Sumner 
and  his  speech.  That  man  was  EDWARD  EVERETT.  Listen  to  him : 

"  I  have  condemned  from  the  outset,  and  still  most  decidedly  condemn  the  policy  of  the 
late  administration  towards  Kansas.  I  opposed  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  in  the  Territorial 
Committee,  of  which  I  was  a  member.  I  voted  against  the  amendment  toHhe  bill  by  which 
the  Missouri  compromise  was  repealed.  With  these  views  of  the  subject,  though,  as  I 
trust,  for  reasons  higher  than  any  effect  on  party  politics,  I  FULLY  CONCURRED  in  the 
main  line  of  argument  in  Mr.  Sumner's  speech.  Abstaining,  however,  habitually  myself 
from  all  personalities  in  debate,  and  believing  that,  they  always  irritate  and  never  persuade 
or  convince,  I  could  not  of  course  bestow  my  '  unqualified  approbation'  on  the  manner  in 
which  he  treated  the  subject." 

Disapproving  alone  of  the  personalities,  Mr.  Everett  "  fully  concurred"  in 
Mr.  Sumner's  assault  upon  the  South  and  her.  institutions,  and  the  "  over 
throw"  of  those  institutions.  Can  any  man  point  out  the  difference  between 
Edward  Everett  and  Hannibal  Hamlin  ?  And  is  this  the  man  whom  the  South 
ern  people  would  feel  safe  in  supporting  ? 


WASHINGTON 

ISSUED  BY  THE  NATIONAL  DEMOCRATIC  EXECUTIVE  COMMITTEE 


McQiu,  &  WITHEROW,  Printers. 


JUN   8 


LIBRARY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 


TIME 


: — — __ 


f  72  -4  PNT 


Stf 


LD62A-30m-2,'71 
(P2003slO)9412A-A-o2 


- 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


Berkeley 


Gaylamount 
Pamphlet 

Binder 
Gaylord  Bros..  Inc. 

Stockton,  Calif. 
T.  M.  Reg.  U.S.  Pat.  Off. 


U.  C.  BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 


CDT35S3T5M 


